House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I can now announce the arrangements for the election of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I declared the Chair vacant yesterday. Nominations will close at noon on Tuesday 28 November. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, Table Office and Public Bill Office.
Only Members from the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Are Members going to listen? Some people might want to put their names in. [Interruption.] Only Members from the Conservative party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 29 November between 11 am and 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby. A briefing note with more information will be available from the Vote Office.
I also remind Members that the private Members’ Bills ballot book is open today in the No Lobby until 6 pm, at which point it will be taken to the Public Bill Office and remain open for signatures until the rise of the House. The ballot draw will be held at 9 am tomorrow in Committee Room 15.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
Tackling fraud is a priority for this Government. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires regulated companies to mitigate the risk posed by fraud and scams on their services. In addition, Ofcom will publish codes of practice recommending steps for companies to take.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What will companies actually have to do under the terms of the Act?
Saqib Bhatti
All companies in scope of the Act will need to take action to tackle fraud where it is facilitated through user-generated content or via search results. They must take measures to prevent fraudulent content from appearing on their platforms, and swiftly remove it if it does so. Additionally, there will be a duty on the largest social media platforms and search engines that will require them to tackle fraudulent adverts on their services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that response. I have heard from numerous constituents who have been victims of online scams where perpetrators ask for bank details over the phone. What steps can the Minister take to make people, especially elderly people—they are the ones who come to me—more aware of what to look out for in terms of online scams, to ensure that the money that they have earned over their lifetime is not stolen?
Saqib Bhatti
As I said, there will be a duty on the largest social media platforms that will require them to tackle fraudulent adverts. That will have a significant impact in preventing a range of online frauds, including romance scams and scam ads. I will also talk to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on the hon. Member’s behalf, because the Government have a fraud strategy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
We have regular meetings with Ofcom and telecommunications providers to discuss the migration from analogue to digital, and in due course the retirement of the copper network. Ofcom has set out high-level conditions for the gradual deregulation of BT Group’s copper-based network in the future, but it is too early to determine the process that will trigger the complete deregulation. Ofcom will consider that in the next regulatory review period.
Mr Carmichael
Last year, some of my constituents in Shetland were without electricity for six days. Moving to voice over internet, they will have a resilience of one hour. What assurance can the Minister give me that my constituents will not be left cut off without communications after the copper network is withdrawn?
Sir John Whittingdale
The decision to migrate from the public switched telephone network to voice over internet is one for the industry, but nevertheless we are following this very carefully. Ofcom has regular discussions, and I, too, have been meeting Ofcom. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make it certain that vulnerable consumers are protected. Ofcom will ensure that providers give them back-up in the event of a power outage, and it will be their duty to ensure that that is sufficient.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I am all in favour of new infrastructure being rolled out, and the replacement of old technologies with new ones. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on how we can ensure that telecoms providers use any existing ducting, rather than putting up telegraph poles unnecessarily?
Sir John Whittingdale
I have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon. Friend’s question, as I know that this matter is causing concern for a number of Members. We are very keen that unnecessary infrastructure should not be built where existing ducts can be used. We have set out regulations on that, and Ofcom oversees it. Local authorities will be able to make reports to Ofcom if existing ducts are not being sufficiently used and it is felt that the infrastructure is not necessary.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Online Safety Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent, has been designed to keep pace with emerging technologies. The Act will regulate AI-generated content in much the same way that it does content created by humans. It covers AI-generated content shared by users with other users, search results generated by AI and AI-generated pornography. In addition, the Act will criminalise the sharing of deepfake intimate image abuse, including when that is AI-generated.
Ms Qaisar
May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box? I will not embarrass him by calling him a friend, but I wish him the best of luck.
As the world transitions into the new age of AI, the Tories are leaving the people of Scotland at risk from harmful AI-generated content and social media. Will the Minister outline why the Scottish Government was blocked from participating in one of the first major AI safety summits?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the hon. Member—I will embarrass her and say that we are friends. However, I respectfully disagree, because the Scottish people were represented by the UK Government.
Owen Thompson
Meta, having recognised the threat that unrestricted use of AI could represent in elections and democracy, has banned the use of generative AI in its political adverts. Why does a private company seem to be doing more to curb the spread of electoral misinformation than this Government?
Saqib Bhatti
The Government take the integrity and security of our democratic processes very seriously. We will continue to safeguard against future risks, strengthen our resilience and ensure that the regulatory framework is as effective as possible. DSIT supports wider cross-Government efforts to protect UK democratic processes, including through the defending democracy taskforce and election cell, and will be working closely with social media platforms to ensure that the right systems are in place to identify and remove harmful material, including deepfakes, where it breaches platform terms of service.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and welcome him to the Dispatch Box.
GCHQ this week says that it expects hostile disruption of the next election through deepfakes using AI. Is my hon. Friend absolutely confident that the Electoral Commission has all the powers it needs to prevent that, and why are the Government not implementing their suggestion in the White Paper to introduce the legislation to empower regulators?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As I said, the Government will take this issue incredibly seriously, and I am confident that, through the defending democracy taskforce and election cell, we will be able to do the utmost to protect ourselves from election interference. I offer to meet him to discuss this further and see what else can be done.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I too welcome my hon. Friend to his role. What discussions has he or his Department had about raising public awareness of the impact that AI will have on society, and increasing understanding that not all content, harmful or otherwise, might be what it seems?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have just had a global, leading AI safety summit, which had immense coverage on that and also focused on frontier risks. We have always been clear that we will take a pragmatic, proportionate and contextual approach. With the 28 countries plus the European Union who have agreed to the Bletchley declaration, there is a great opportunity to use AI for our benefit, but we should also be wary of the risks involved.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The AI regulation White Paper set out how we will regulate AI through a flexible framework. We have taken steps to implement our approach, including establishing a central AI risk function and the AI Safety Institute. We are engaging closely with regulators and their sponsoring Government Departments to understand their readiness to regulate AI effectively.
Preet Kaur Gill
This weekend I was disturbed by news of a deepfake audio of Sadiq Khan circulating online, clearly manufactured to whip up hate and disinformation. That is cause for grave concern for elected representatives. As the National Cyber Security Centre warned yesterday, advances in artificial intelligence will be exploited by “malicious actors” seeking to spread disinformation and undermine our democracy, and the technology is already falling into the wrong hands. With elections next year, does the Minister recognise the urgent need for binding, not voluntary, regulation of frontier AI?
Saqib Bhatti
I share those concerns and have been following the news. It is not just the video at the weekend; there has been another one, which is about the Leader of the Opposition—that is incredibly concerning. We are working with media organisations and online platforms, and looking at this closely with the defending democracy taskforce.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
This week, the Science and Technology Committee has been in Brussels listening to how the EU is progressing with its regulation of AI. Despite the commitment to introducing legislation in the White Paper, it was not included in the King’s Speech. Why not?
Saqib Bhatti
The Government have been clear that we will take a contextual and proportionate response. The key is to understand the risks involved. The Government are not saying that there will not be any legislation in the future; we are saying that we need first to understand the risks and then to adapt accordingly. The Secretary of State is in the United States at the moment. What is clear from the Bletchley declaration, and from the conversation that I had with her yesterday, is that we are seen as a global leader in this field, and other countries are looking to us to lead the way.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), to his role, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), on his appointment and on the birth of his child. I hope that he is getting some sleep in these busy days.
AI has potential benefits across the public sector—I have seen that in hospitals, where it is already delivering huge benefits to patients—but the new safety institute, which will gather together world-class talent, is not being tasked with finding new uses to improve our public services. Why not?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his kind remarks—I can assure him that I am getting some sleep.
The AI Safety Institute will look at the risks involved. We will be working with the private sector, and we have always been clear that AI brings many benefits and we will ensure that we have a regulatory framework that encourages innovation and growth in the private and public sectors.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
We have already announced 12 Project Gigabit contracts to extend gigabit-capable networks in rural and hard-to-reach areas of the UK. More contracts are set to be announced shortly, from the extensive pipeline of procurements. Through the shared rural network programme, we are also jointly investing over £1 billion with the industry to encourage 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK landmass by the end of 2025.
Paul Howell
My Sedgefield constituency has faced many trials and tribulations in trying to get rural broadband, particularly in Killerby, Summerhouse and Mordon. When I last met the leader of Building Digital UK, I was encouraged about progress. Can the Minister reassure me that he also believes that progress is being made?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion in campaigning for improved connectivity for his constituents. In the north-east as a whole, we have seen faster growth of gigabit broadband coverage than in any other region of the UK. None the less, I am encouraged to hear of his discussions with BDUK. I hope that a contract will be signed shortly to improve coverage still further, including in the towns that he mentions. I am happy to keep him updated as soon as we are in a position to make further announcements.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Northleigh is like many other villages in rural Devon in that it has been waiting eight years for superfast broadband. There are 51 houses in Northleigh that are still waiting to be connected. Residents and small businesses are subject to constant emails saying, “Use your vouchers,” but they cannot because contractors are unaccountable. Does the Minister agree with my constituents that the voucher scheme is ineffective and should be scrapped?
Sir John Whittingdale
I do not agree with that. The voucher scheme has delivered gigabit broadband to thousands of constituents up and down the country. At the same time, we are rolling out the procurement contract. I know that there are particular challenges in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but we have already extended gigabit coverage to 78% of the United Kingdom. I am happy to ask BDUK to discuss with him any specific challenges in his constituency.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Andrew Griffith)
I thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for the outstanding contribution he has made to British science and technology.
The Government are investing around £4.2 billion in net zero research and innovation over the current spending review period, including through UK Research and Innovation and other Government Departments.
Alistair Strathern
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am incredibly proud of the leading role that Cranfield University in my constituency is playing, not just in pioneering research around net zero but in commercialisation of that technology. Can the Minister outline what further support we can offer companies such as Cranfield Aerospace Solutions in my constituency, to make sure we capture that economic benefit locally in the future?
Andrew Griffith
I share the hon. Member’s pride in the wonderful work done by Cranfield University and Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. We are providing £1.6 billion of funding for the UK’s nine Catapults, including the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, some of which will go to the Cranfield Digital Aviation Research and Technology Centre. I hope to join the hon. Member in visiting that wonderful institution.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister is new to his task, and a very wide portfolio it is. In the wall-to-wall briefings he is currently getting, will he particularly ask for briefings on British science in the Arctic and the Antarctic? We have 78 universities that are leading in that field—we are the fourth largest polar scientific research nation. We are a leader in that area, and the Minister needs to know all about it.
Andrew Griffith
I know that my hon. Friend does fantastic work highlighting polar research through the all-party parliamentary group for the polar regions. I will be happy to champion that work, and to meet him regarding that important domain for science.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his role. I hope he will share his predecessor’s enthusiasm for, and commitment to, science.
Climate change presents huge challenges and huge opportunities. Labour would champion university clusters and spin-outs as engines of sustainable regional growth, but right now great green job-creating businesses such as Low Carbon Materials, a Durham University spin-out, and Airex, an award-winning retrofit start-up, are bogged down by Tory red tape, with some new products subject to 11 different regulators. Will the Minister adopt Labour’s proposal for a regulatory innovation office to unblock the system, end damaging uncertainty and drive much-needed growth?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and look forward to working collaboratively with her. I absolutely share my predecessor’s determination to drive forward British science, including the all-important work on net zero.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
This week, the Secretary of State is building on the momentum from the artificial intelligence summit by meeting with key partners and policymakers in the United States, championing Britain’s leading global role in AI, space, tech, online safety, quantum and other areas. It is only two weeks ago that Britain convened 28 countries and the European Union at Bletchley Park to sign the world’s first agreement on tackling the risks of frontier AI. This followed the historic passage of the Online Safety Act 2023, which has been viewed across the world as the gold standard of online child safety legislation. The Secretary of State will be consolidating and accelerating Britain’s global advantage in these priority areas, ensuring that the special relationship grows even stronger when it comes to science and technology, and that the collaboration between our two countries—
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend will know that the planned retirement of the public switched telephone network in 2025 will bring very significant concerns across rural communities, particularly in Essex—he will be familiar with that. Can he provide some assurance about the work that is under way between the Government and telecommunications providers to help improve services in Essex, particularly where we have poor broadband connectivity?
Sir John Whittingdale
As I suggested earlier, the retirement of the PSTN land network is a decision for the industry, but the Government have a key role to play in ensuring vulnerable consumers are protected through the transition. I have regular meetings with communications providers and Ofcom to discuss progress on that.
With regard to Essex, I share my right hon. Friend’s concern—my constituency is the neighbouring constituency to hers—about the need to ensure that vulnerable constituents are protected. I can assure her that I will continue—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have only about seven minutes, so the Minister really has to be a bit more cautious in how much time he is using.
I call the shadow Minister.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that terrorist groups could use artificial intelligence to build chemical or biological weapons, but he has still failed to act decisively to regulate AI, even though the US and the EU are both taking action. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State is using her current trip to the US to learn from the Biden Administration, or will our country have to put up with yet more dither and delay?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Government have always been clear that we will have a contextual and proportionate response to AI. I spoke to the Secretary of State yesterday, and it is very clear that the US sees us as global leaders and will be working with us.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Andrew Griffith)
Teesside is a wonderful net zero powerhouse, and I commend the green steel project. That is one reason why Teesside was chosen to pilot the Innovate UK programme of launchpads, each of which will receive up to £7.5 million.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I welcome the new Front-Bench team to their positions. Since November 2020, £1.1 billion of taxpayers’ money has been invested in the Rosalind Franklin Institute as a mega-lab to defend Britain against future pandemics. Can one of the new team explain why the mega-lab has been put up for sale?
Andrew Griffith
The Government are investing record amounts in innovation and research in technology, including across the life sciences sector. I will happily meet the hon. Lady to discuss this matter in more detail.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Saqib Bhatti
As a father, this issue concerns me greatly. The Online Safety Act is the most powerful child protection law in a generation. All in-scope companies will need to take robust steps to protect children from illegal content and activity on their services. Those safety measures will need to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content and activity, such as bullying and content that promotes eating disorders and self-harm.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to flag up the value that successful enterprise zones can bring to local communities. I want to see DSIT sectors benefiting as well, and I am happy to co-ordinate further with colleagues in other Departments to explore those opportunities.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Andrew Griffith
The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK has talent that supports research and innovation and drives growth. That is why we are investing millions in the brightest researchers through scholarships, PhD placements and fellowships in technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Sir John Whittingdale
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the counter-disinformation unit is there to flag up to platforms potentially misleading information, but it has no power to have it removed. I can give him an assurance that it does not identify any Members of this House or professional journalists.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Research and development tax credits have been remarkably successful in promoting investment by small and medium-sized enterprises. However, the Suffolk chamber of commerce has highlighted that the system has ground to a halt due to the sledgehammer approach of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackling fraud. Will my hon. Friend liaise with HMRC and the Treasury to ensure that a more pragmatic approach is adopted?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is a champion of his constituency, and I am happy to speak to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on that important matter on his behalf.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
At the start of the year, I made halving inflation my No.1 priority. Today, we have delivered on that commitment. There remains more to do, but this is a strong step forward.
Also this morning, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on the Rwanda plan. It confirmed that the principle of removing asylum seekers to a safe third country is lawful. There are further elements that it wants additional certainty on, and it noted that changes can be delivered in the future to address those issues. The Government have been working already on a new treaty with Rwanda, and we will finalise that in the light of today’s judgment. Furthermore, if necessary I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks. Let me assure the House that my commitment to stopping the boats is unwavering and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making an oral statement shortly to the House.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, and I shall have further such meetings later today.
Richard Thomson
When the Prime Minister took office, he promised to lead a Government marked by
“integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”
What is it about the judgment of David Cameron and his relationship with Lex Greensill, or his lobbying for Chinese state interests, that made the Prime Minister consider him a suitable candidate to be Foreign Secretary?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that the former Prime Minister has rejoined the Government as Foreign Secretary. He brings unrivalled experience and relationships across the world, and will do a fantastic job championing British interests everywhere he goes.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know he has championed this issue, and that it matters to his constituents. As I said, the judgment confirms that the principle of removing asylum seekers to a safe third country is lawful. The Government have already been working in advance on a new treaty with Rwanda, which we will finalise in the light of today’s judgment to address the challenges that were raised. I say again that if it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions are still frustrating plans at that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships. The British people expect us to do whatever it takes to stop the boats, and that is precisely what this Government will deliver.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The Prime Minister obviously thinks so little of his own MPs that he has had to peel David Cameron away from his seven-year exile in a shepherd’s hut and make him Foreign Secretary. A few months ago, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that the now Foreign Secretary’s role in a Chinese investment fund may have been—these are its words—
“engineered by the Chinese state”.
I hardly need to remind the Prime Minister of the threat posed by the Chinese Communist party or the intimidation of Members of this House. When will he instruct the Foreign Secretary to give full public disclosure of his work for Chinese interests?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I am delighted that the former Prime Minister has rejoined the Government as Foreign Secretary. As an individual with unrivalled experience, he will help Britain to navigate an uncertain world in challenging times. Of course, like every other Minister, he will go through the normal process with the independent adviser. The Government’s position on China is clear: China represents an epoch-defining challenge. That is why we have taken strong and robust steps to protect ourselves against the risk that it poses. We will take no lessons from the Labour party on protecting our national security. It has taken almost £700,000 from an alleged Chinese agent. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Those on the Front Bench just need to calm down.
Keir Starmer
For someone who has spent the last few weeks complaining about recycling bins, it is ironic that the Prime Minister’s latest reset involves recycling the architects of 13 years of Tory failure. This is the Prime Minister who reanimated the career of the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) in order to resuscitate his own, just days after she was sacked for a national security breach. Is he ashamed that he was so desperate to become Tory leader and so scared to face a vote that he put someone so totally unfit for office in charge of Britain’s national security?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions 13 years, but we should remember what happened at the beginning of those 13 years. It is this party that restored the country’s financial security after the Labour party left no money behind. It is a bit rich to take lectures on security from a man who wanted to make the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) Prime Minister of our country.
Keir Starmer
The right hon. Member for Islington North is not even a Labour MP any more. It is a changed party with strong leadership. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We have a lot of very important business today with some important votes. I want to get through this speedily.
Keir Starmer
For 13 years, our security has been undermined by this Tory Government, and now we have the most ridiculous, pathetic spectacle of all: the Prime Minister’s Rwanda scheme, cooked up with his national security threat former Home Secretary, has blown up. He was told over and over again that this would happen, that it would not work and that it was just the latest Tory gimmick, but he bet everything on it and now he is totally exposed. The central pillar of his Government has crumbled beneath him. Does he want to apologise to the country for wasting £140 million of taxpayers’ cash and wasting his entire time in office?
The Prime Minister
Obviously the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said about our approach to Rwanda. When it comes to stopping the boats, Rwanda is one part of our plan, which has already delivered a reduction in the number of small boats this year by a third. He talks about apologising and he talks about the right hon. Member for Islington North not being a Labour MP now. Yes, he was not a Labour MP when he declined 15 different times to say that Hamas are a terrorist organisation this week, which is shameful, but he was a Labour MP—indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman served with him. He told the country that the right hon. Member for Islington North would make “a great Prime Minister”. At that point, the right hon. Member for Islington North described Hamas as friends. Does he want to apologise for that now? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Are we serious? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Oh, I would not challenge. I have to say that our constituents are watching this. They are very concerned about the affairs of today and the votes later. A lot of Members wish to speak. Those who do not want that to happen, please, go outside and have a conversation there. If you want to bawl and shout, do it elsewhere, but it will not be happening in here today.
Keir Starmer
I am so glad that the Prime Minister agrees that this is a changed Labour party. While he was wasting his time on this gimmick, the asylum backlog has swollen to 175,000 people. Taxpayers are paying £8 million a day on hotel bills, and 615 people arrived by small boat last Sunday alone. Plan A has failed. After this session, whether he likes it or not, he will have to go back to his office, back to the drawing board and start from scratch. Can he assure the British public that he will drop what his former Home Secretary calls his “magical thinking” and start treating small boat crossings with the seriousness they deserve?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a changed Labour party—perhaps we will see that this evening. He cannot even make his party do the right thing when it comes to standing by Israel in the vote later today. He talks about taking small boat crossings seriously. He has opposed every single measure that we have taken. Let me update him on what we have done this year. The number of illegal Albanian arrivals is down by 90%. Some 20,000 people have been returned this year. The number of crossings is down by a third. He mentioned hotels. We are closing 50 of them, with money being saved for taxpayers. All those measures, by the way, were opposed by the Opposition. What is his plan? Ah, yes, there we have it: a cosy deal with the European Union that would see the UK accept 100,000 illegal migrants. He does not want to stop the boats; he wants to welcome more of them.
Keir Starmer
It is very straightforward: the Prime Minister promised that he would stop the boats this year. Today is 15 November. He has wasted all his time on a gimmick, and now he is absolutely nowhere. Will he level with the British public and finally admit that he has failed to deliver on his promise?
The Prime Minister
This Government have done more to tackle illegal migration than any in the past. Let us review: the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been on the wrong side of this issue his entire career. This is a man who described all immigration law as racist. He said it was a mistake to control immigration, and he has never once in this place voted for stricter asylum rules. It is clear that while he might want to listen to the open-border activists, I am siding with the British people.
Keir Starmer
If the Prime Minister was confident about his promise, he would have given an answer saying that he stands by it and will deliver it by the end of the year. The absence of that answer is absolutely amazing in the circumstances. He has had three reshuffles, a forgotten conference speech, an empty King’s Speech—he even found time to fanboy Elon Musk—but not one of them has made the slightest difference to the lives of working people. If we had a pound for every time he had a reset, the cost of living crisis would have been over long ago.
The Prime Minister likes to think of himself as the man from silicon valley, the tech-savvy Californian, the country’s first AI PM, and yet his big idea is to keep turning his Government on and off at the wall and hope that we see signs of life. Is he starting to feel that, as somebody once said, he was the future once?
The Prime Minister
I slightly missed the end of that. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman finally bring up the cost of living—on that, he is right, as it is the No. 1 challenge facing families up and down the country—and he talked about delivering on promises, but he failed to recognise that today was the day we delivered on the most important pledge I made: to halve inflation. We are delivering on that commitment and easing the burden for families up and down the country. Everything we would see from the Labour party would jeopardise that progress—borrowing £28 billion a year, undermining our energy security and giving in to his union backers with inflation-busting pay rises. That is not a sensible plan; it would push up mortgage rates, push up inflation and harm working families. All the while, we are going to continue delivering for the country.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted that the west midlands now tops regional rankings for foreign direct investment. The Government are investing significantly in the region, including through hundreds of millions of pounds of levelling-up fund and towns fund investments, and introducing a new pilot scheme to help businesses in the region become more energy efficient.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. On behalf of my constituents in Lichfield, may I thank him for having the guts to stop HS2? May I ask that, for the area in the north of my constituency where construction is still going on, that happens swiftly, and that in areas that will not have HS2, compensation is given swiftly to those people who are expecting it?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his consistent campaigning on this issue. I recall his last question at Prime Minister’s questions on this very topic. I reassure him that we are committed to fair treatment for people affected by the changes, while protecting taxpayers appropriately. Wherever property has been acquired for HS2, property owners have been fully compensated, and any outstanding cases will be settled. We are developing a programme to sell the surplus land on HS2 phase 2, ensuring that it delivers value for money and does not disrupt local property markets. I will ensure that the Rail Minister meets him swiftly so that he can speak on behalf of his constituents.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In 2010, the then Prime Minister and now Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, said:
“People in Gaza are living under constant attacks and pressure in an open-air prison.”
Does the current Prime Minister not agree that if there is not an immediate ceasefire, we all in this Chamber will be watching on as that open-air prison is turned into a graveyard?
The Prime Minister
No one can deny the suffering that the people in Gaza are undergoing at the moment. I spoke about this on Monday, and I spoke about it consistently with Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority. We are doing everything we can to get aid into the region and we have repeatedly and consistently called for humanitarian pauses, to get aid in and get hostages and foreign nationals out as quickly as possible. We will continue, as will the Foreign Secretary, to make sure that happens.
Stephen Flynn
How much worse does it need to get? In Gaza, 4,609 children are already dead. Babies in the neonatal intensive care unit are dying because they do not have access to oxygen. For Members across the House, this is a question of values and of conscience. Does the Prime Minister not agree that should there be a vote on an immediate ceasefire, Members across the House should be afforded a free vote?
The Prime Minister
Our position as a Government is clear: it is right that Israel is able to defend itself. That is a principle that we support. It has suffered an appalling terrorist attack—Hamas is a terrorist organisation—and it is not just Israel’s right but its duty to protect its citizens. At the same time, at the United Nations and bilaterally with all our partners we have consistently called for humanitarian pauses to ensure that more aid can get in, and hostages and foreign nationals can get out. That is the right thing to do. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. I am confident that our efforts are already making a big difference on the ground.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment with the Labour-run council in Kirklees. Just this week we saw a Labour councillor suspended for antisemitism. As he said, it has also closed Dewsbury sports centre and is proposing to increase car parking charges, punishing local businesses and shoppers in the run-up to Christmas. Clearly, the council is no longer fit for purpose. Local residents deserve better.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Last week, Members from across the House heard testimony from a young Israeli man who lost both his peace-campaigning parents in the 7 October attack. This morning, we heard from Palestinians who have lost generations of families in the south of Gaza because of the military attacks there. This is a question of humanity and morality. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to lead the calls for peace, or to endorse death, violence and destruction. Which will he choose?
The Prime Minister
I think that is an extremely naive and simplistic way of looking at the problem. The hon. Member failed to mention the fact that a proscribed terrorist organisation perpetrated an awful attack on over 1,000 individuals. Israel has every right to defend itself in those circumstances. People in that country would expect nothing less than for it to provide security for its citizens. Of course, alongside that, it must abide by international law. We will do everything we can, as I have said, to ensure that aid flows in and alleviates the suffering of the people in Gaza.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that our decision on HS2 means that every region of the country will now receive more transport investment than it would have done before, including the south-west. I am pleased that there is funding to protect the vital rail link between Exeter and Plymouth, that there will be a £2.8 billion road resurfacing fund, and that his constituents in the south-west will continue to benefit from the £2 bus fare until the end of next year. We have previously provided almost £8 million to progress the station that he mentions. I can reassure him that the Rail Minister will have heard his representations and will continue to update him on the progress being made.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government commissioned Nigel Boardman to review all those issues and strengthen the system following those recommendations. I am very confident that this nation will be well represented abroad by the former Prime Minister. He is a Prime Minister with unrivalled experience of foreign affairs and will help Britain to navigate an uncertain world in challenging times. In contrast, the Labour party would offer to the country a shadow Foreign Secretary who backed the Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor to be leader, was paid to appear on Russian television and even voted against Trident. Does that sound like a man who should represent Britain?
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend and am pleased that the vast majority of people will continue not to pay the higher rate. I share his ambition to cut taxes for working people. Right now, inflation is falling and we are sticking to our plan, which is delivering a halving of it this year. That is the most effective tax cut we could have delivered for the British people this year, rather than making it worse, as the Labour party would do, by borrowing money irresponsibly and in a way that would just drive up inflation and interest rates. But I want to reassure him that I absolutely share his ambition to cut taxes for working people. As we stabilise the economy, that is something both the Chancellor and I are keen to deliver.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that the last figures show that actually we had a record number of first-time buyers. We are delivering 1 million homes over this Parliament, while at the same time the Labour party blocked our plans to unlock 100,000 homes. When it comes to Southampton, I am also pleased that we are on, I think, a seven or eight-game unbeaten run.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The UK’s long-standing position on the middle east peace process is very clear: we support a negotiated settlement, leading to a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state in Gaza and the west bank. I spoke about this on Monday. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security. The longer-term governance of Gaza and security needs to be looked at in the round. It is something that I have discussed repeatedly with President Abbas. We agree with the United States that Gaza should ultimately be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. We will continue to support President Abbas and his people to get to that outcome.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important issue, and I will of course ask the Health Secretary to look into it. As she will understand, NICE operates independently of Government, but if there is a conversation that can be had, I will ensure that it takes place.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
In view of the events of the last six weeks, can the Prime Minister tell the House why the Government have not proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
The Prime Minister
This Government continue to take strong action against Iran while people in the UK and around the world are under threat from the regime. We have sanctioned more than 350 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety. The National Security Act 2023 implements new measures to protect the British public, including new offences for espionage and foreign interference. While the Government keep the list of proscribed organisations under review, it is, as Members will be aware, a long-standing convention that we do not comment on whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
There are many, many to pick from, but what I would say is that under his leadership this country hosted what was widely considered to be one of the most successful G8 summits of recent times.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It was great to welcome the Prime Minister to Chelmsford earlier this year, when he launched his antisocial behaviour strategy. He will be pleased to know that the local police have been consistently stepping up their activities. Last week they arrested 24 people for many crimes, and last night they took out a major county lines gang. Will the Prime Minister please join me in congratulating all those in our local police force, and would he like to come back to Chelmsford and go out on patrol, because he would be very welcome?
The Prime Minister
It was great to visit my right hon. Friend and to launch the Government’s antisocial behaviour plan. I thank her for raising awareness about the important work that her local policing team are doing, and I am pleased that they have been empowered by our strategy. Antisocial behaviour makes life miserable for many, which is why the delivery of our plan is so important, and it is making a difference across the country, including in her part of the world. I was also pleased to see that under this Government, by the most recent year for which we have data, crime had decreased by 56% since 2010.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Actually, this Government and previous Governments have a proud record in championing LGBT rights. It was this Government who introduced same-sex marriage. We will continue to ensure that everyone in our society can live with tolerance and compassion, and have every opportunity available to them. That is what we have delivered, and that is what we will continue to deliver.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Last year, through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, my family and I welcomed a refugee family to our home. I am proud that this country has always offered refuge to those who need it. However, it is essential that we in this country decide who comes here. The Prime Minister has rightly said that he will do whatever it takes to stop the small boats and the evil trade around them, but is it not apparent after this morning’s ruling that what it will take is a new law to override the Human Rights Act and cut through the thicket of case law built up by judicial activism, so that we can bring back control of our borders and stop the small boats?
The Prime Minister
It is right that we go through the judgment carefully and properly. As I have said, the Government have already been working in advance on a new treaty with Rwanda to address the concerns that were raised previously and were raised by the Supreme Court, which also acknowledged that changes can be delivered to address those issues. Let me repeat, however, that if it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks, or indeed international conventions, are still frustrating plans after that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships, because we are absolutely committed to stopping the boats.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have been consistent from the start that while Israel has a right to defend itself, it is important that it complies with international law. It is a point I have made in every meeting or phone conversation I have had with Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was a privilege to meet the hon. Lady’s constituents and to hear of the pain they are going through, which I have enormous sympathy for. That is why we are doing everything we can to bring hostages home. We are engaged intensively in diplomatic activity in the region and working to get foreign nationals and British nationals home, and I am pleased to say that well over 200 have now left Gaza. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that everyone can safely leave who needs to.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
The Prime Minister knows that I stand unapologetically with my steelmakers in Scunthorpe. He knows that I believe, as many across this House do, that the UK must retain a virgin steelmaking capability, for strategic reasons if nothing else. Will he reassure the House that he is personally following developments at British Steel and doing all he can to retain what is a vital sovereign capability?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her local steelworking community. I hope she is reassured by the action that this Government have already taken to support steelmaking in our country, reaching a landmark agreement with Tata Steel to safeguard thousands of jobs there, as well as during the pandemic. I agree that it is important for our industrial base, and we will continue to have constructive conversations with all those companies to ensure that we can support them in their transition to a cleaner, greener steelmaking future.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime. He is absolutely right about the importance of this issue. I worked in my mum’s shop—her pharmacy—growing up, and I understand exactly what he is talking about when small businesses are the victims of crime. Our expectation and our agreement with police forces—we did this earlier this year—is that all shoplifting should be followed up where there is evidence such as CCTV footage and that any violent or abusive behaviour towards shopworkers, particularly those who provide a valuable service to the public, is never acceptable. That is why we introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assaults on workers who provide a service to the public. I commend my hon. Friend for everything he is doing on this issue.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he has made it clear to the new Foreign Secretary, who of course we wish well, that his policy and conduct of EU-related affairs will be consistent with the Government’s 2019 election manifesto and the referendum and that he is now fully committed to UK parliamentary sovereignty, self-government and democracy in accordance with the Government’s subsequent legislation?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance, because this Government are seizing the opportunities of Brexit, aided by his advice and support. We passed the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to ensure that we can regulate our growth industries more competitively, and we have signed trade deals with the fastest growing regions across the world including, most recently, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. It is this Government who are delivering the benefits of Brexit to every part of our country, and long may that continue.
Illegal Immigration
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s plan for ending illegal immigration.
The Supreme Court has today upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, meaning that we cannot yet lawfully remove people to Rwanda. The important thing to note is that today’s judgment was made on the basis of facts from 15 months ago. The Government, of course, fully respect the Supreme Court, but its judgment does not weaken our resolve to deter people from making these illegal, dangerous and unnecessary journeys.
This is a lengthy judgment that we now need to digest and reflect upon. We take our obligations to the courts very seriously, which is why we have already taken action to address a number of points raised by the lower courts. It is only through breaking the business model of illegal people traffickers that we can fully take control of our borders and save lives at sea. This is why the Prime Minister backed our deal with Rwanda, passed legislation to deliver it and said, last December, that other countries would follow our lead. We have now seen that other countries are, indeed, also exploring third-country models to address illegal immigration, including Austria, Germany and Denmark. Italy’s deal with Albania is a new and innovative model for processing asylum claims.
Nothing in today’s Supreme Court judgment dims our commitment. The Supreme Court said there are issues with Rwanda’s asylum system that could create the possibility of someone being returned to a country where they could face persecution. I am struck by the Court’s remarks about the risk of refoulement:
“The structural changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future, but they were not shown to be in place at the time when the lawfulness of the policy had to be considered in these proceedings.”
The judgment was making reference to the earlier proceedings.
We have a plan to provide exactly that certainty. We anticipated this judgment as a possible result and, for the last few months, have been working on a plan to provide the certainty that the Court demands. We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity and to amend our agreement to make it clear that those sent there cannot be sent to any country other than the UK. Our intention is to upgrade our agreement to a treaty as soon as possible, which will make it absolutely clear to our courts and to Strasbourg that the risks laid out by the Court today have been responded to, will be consistent with international law and will ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise it.
The Prime Minister has said that, if our domestic legal framework frustrates our plans, he is prepared to change our laws, but we are not going to put forward proposals simply to manufacture an unnecessary row for political gain. We have a plan to deliver the Rwanda deal—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are not listening, but they might want to listen to this. We have a plan to deliver the Rwanda deal and we will do whatever it takes to stop the boats.
Illegal immigration is a huge global challenge, and that challenge is growing. It was a topic that I regularly raised with countries across Europe and around the wider world in my former role as Foreign Secretary. Across Europe, monthly illegal migrant numbers are trending upwards, with an exception: our numbers are falling. Illegal immigration is dangerous, it undermines the laws of our country, and it is unfair on those who come here legally and on the British people who play by the rules. It must and it will stop.
This a wonderful country. I recognise that because I have just had the chance to see it as others see it from overseas. Inevitably, people aspire to come here. But more people coming here illegally is not fair on those struggling to get GP appointments, housing or access to schools, or on those people living near to asylum hotels. The impacts are felt by some of the poorest in our society and we have a duty to address their concerns. While the Conservative Government have taken action to protect our country, the Labour party has voted time and again—more than 80 times—not to protect our borders.
Rwanda is ready and willing to help. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees operates its own refugee scheme in Rwanda. Rwanda is ready to receive thousands of people, process their claims, give them excellent care and then support them to integrate in Rwanda; this is an African country full of potential and promise. We have a future-focused, mutually beneficial partnership with it, and we have a plan to deliver it.
The Rwanda plan has only ever been one tool in our toolbox. We have a plan to drive down numbers and our plan is working. Before the Prime Minister launched his 10-point plan last December, the number of people entering the UK illegally in small boats had more than quadrupled, but while illegal migration in the rest of Europe continues to rise, crossings to the UK are now down by a third.
We are tackling illegal immigration at every stage of the journey of a would-be illegal migrant, and our plan is working. Last year, the Prime Minister signed the largest ever small boats deal with France. We have expanded our joint intelligence cell to deepen intelligence sharing and dismantle the criminal gangs. Cutting-edge surveillance technology is in play, and we have beefed up security infrastructure, such as more CCTV, at key border crossing points along the channel. We have ensured that more French officials and officers patrol French beaches, and they are working closely with UK staff. So far in 2023, nearly 22,000 crossing attempts have been prevented because of the close co-ordination between British and French officials. That means less money that the British taxpayers have to spend on hotels, less profit for the criminal gangs and fewer people to process. It sends a clear message to the gangs and to those who want to cross that we will stop them.
As Foreign Secretary, I worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister to agree a new deal with Albania, with better data sharing, closer operational working and financial support. In response to the work that he and I did, the number of Albanian small boat arrivals has fallen by 90%—I repeat that figure of 90%—so far during 2023, and we have returned more than 4,600 people in just 10 months. We want to ensure that it is harder to get into one of those boats in the first place, including by reducing the supply of boats.
We are targeting the movement of those goods, such as dinghies and engines that are used to facilitate the crossings, in order to undermine a key component of the smugglers’ business model.
Those who do make it through will not be able to stay. We have expedited returns arrangements with countries including France, Albania, Turkey and Italy. We have increased the number of illegal working raids by almost 70%. We have cut the asylum legacy backlog by more than 59,000 cases. We have freed up hundreds of hotel beds with the use of alternative sites. We have announced the closure of the first 50 asylum hotels and we have passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the most ambitious immigration legislation in decades, which makes clear that the only route to asylum in the UK is via one of the safe and legal routes we have put in place. Anyone who comes to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. They will be removed either to their home country, if it is safe, or to a safe third country, if it is not.
Mr Speaker, I can assure you that our commitment to ending illegal immigration is unwavering. We are a positive outlier in Europe. Our efforts are working. Small boat crossings are down. Our decision making is faster. We are removing those with no right to be here, and taking action against those who are working illegally.
We have done deals with multiple countries and will continue to do so. Arrivals down, decisions faster, returns up—we are getting on with the job and will do whatever it takes to deliver on our commitment to stop the boats. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the new Home Secretary to his post. He is the eighth Conservative Home Secretary in eight years—and what a mess he has inherited. The Supreme Court’s conclusion today is damning. It exposes the complete failure of the Prime Minister’s flagship Rwanda policy, of his judgment in making it the central part of his policy and of the Conservatives in getting the most basic grip on the boats and asylum chaos.
There is no serious plan on the dangerous boat crossings that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk, the end of which we all want to see. There is no serious plan to sort out the chaos in the asylum system, including ending placing people in costly asylum hotels because of the soaring backlog. There was a readiness to spend more than £140 million of taxpayers’ money on this plan—money we cannot get back now that the policy has totally failed. That adds to the Prime Minister’s disastrous judgment in appointing and backing the previous Home Secretary, who was unfit for the job.
I do not agree with pretty much anything the Home Secretary’s predecessor ever said, but she was right in this message to the Prime Minister:
“If we lose in the Supreme Court…you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one…your magical thinking…has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’.”
Wasting time, wasting money and letting the country down: that is the Conservatives’ record.
The Supreme Court judgment outlines a catalogue of problems with the policy, but Ministers knew all about them. When it was first announced 18 months ago, I raised in the House the problems with the Israel-Rwanda deal. Ministers were warned many times about failures and weaknesses in the Rwanda asylum system, but they just pressed on. Even if the plan had been found lawful today, they have admitted it would have covered only a few hundred people anyway—at a time when 100,000 people applied for asylum in the UK last year, on the Conservative watch—and that it would have cost about twice as much per person as deciding cases in the UK.
The truth is the Government have wasted not just one but five years by failing to deal with the situation. Five years ago there were just a few hundred people crossing in boats, but they let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. They let asylum decisions collapse, so the backlog soared and there are now 20% more people in asylum hotels than there were when the Prime Minister promised to end that.
Will the Home Secretary tell us how much in total the Government have spent on the failed Rwanda plan so far? The House has a right to know. He says he wants a new treaty. How much more will that cost? Despite his optimism, the Supreme Court judgment says
“the Rwandan government indicated that the contemplated arrangements might not be straightforward to implement in practice…the provision of resources does not mean that the problems which we have described can be resolved in the short term.”
Again, we have more of the magical thinking.
What does this mean for the Prime Minister’s flagship legislation? He boasted about passing it only yesterday, but the Government have not actually commenced the central clauses of the law, because without Rwanda—and, frankly, even with Rwanda—the policy does not work and will just lead to an endless, ever-increasing permanent backlog. Will the Secretary of State confirm now that he will not be implementing the central tenets of that law this year? Will he also confirm that this means that the Prime Minister’s pledges to introduce the new law to stop the boats and end hotel use will all be broken this year?
Why will the Home Secretary not put that money into a proper plan to tackle the boats? I do not believe that he ever believed in the Rwanda plan. He distanced himself from it and his predecessor’s language on it. He may even, on occasion, have privately called it batshit. But he and I agree that we need action to stop the boat crossings that are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. We need a properly controlled and managed system for asylum and refugees.
Let us concentrate instead on the things that can work. We support the work with France along the northern coast; we want it to go further. We support the work with Albania and with other countries across Europe to tackle the gangs, but it is far, far too weak. We need a proper, comprehensive and massively scaled-up plan to go after the criminal gangs, a proper system to clear the backlog, and a proper returns unit in place so that we can end hotel use. Instead of that cost going up from £6 million to £8 million a day on his watch, let us end hotel use and save the taxpayer £2 billion. That should be common ground, so I suggest that he stops wasting taxpayers’ money on more failing schemes, that he ditches the magical thinking and the culture wars of his predecessors and that he ditches the gimmicks and finally gets a grip.
James Cleverly
One of the dangers of writing a critique of Government policy before reading the facts laid out in a statement is that the statement makes the critique obsolete. The right hon. Lady talks about hotel usage, which I remind the House is coming down. She talks about small boat arrivals in the UK, which I remind the House are coming down. She talks about forming closer working relationships with our European partners, which I remind the House we are already doing.
In response to the right hon. Lady’s various questions, I have written here, “Does Labour have a plan?” [Interruption.] If those on the Labour Benches could curb their enthusiasm and listen to what I was about to say next, they would hear that I was going to concede that it is clear that they do have a plan. Their plan—their great idea—is to do what the Government are already doing, which is bucking the European trend. When other countries are seeing 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% or 100% increases in their illegal arrivals, we are seeing a reduction of one third in ours, bucking the trend.
We have always said that Rwanda, and the deterrent effect of the Rwanda plan, is an important tool in our toolbox; we have never claimed that it was the only one. We have always pursued a range of options—when I say “we”, I mean my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, with me watching him from King Charles Street, although the collective “we” is appropriate here—and, as I set out in my statement, those activities are having an effect.
My final point is that the mask has slipped. The glee that I detect from those on the Opposition Benches for this temporary setback on the delivery of our plan displays what we on the Government Benches know to be true: they do not want migration control to work. They do not want to take control of our borders; they would rather delegate it to anybody else—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Home Secretary. I do not need those on the Front Bench—[Interruption.] You may pull faces, but the bottom line is that I want some quiet to hear what is being said. Our constituents at home want to hear that as well, but when you are chuntering so loudly, they cannot do so.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position? The Home Office is a great Department of State and I hope that he enjoys his time there as much as I enjoyed my time as Home Secretary. Will he confirm that the judgment that the Supreme Court made today was not contingent on the European convention on human rights? Indeed, the fundamental judgment was made regardless of the ECHR.
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and predecessor. She was a fantastic and long-serving Home Secretary, and I intend to compete with her on both of those metrics. She makes an incredibly important point. We looked closely at the judgment and found that it draws our attention to work that we can do, working with our partners in Rwanda, to address the Supreme Court’s concerns about people being returned to unsafe countries. That is where we will address our focus, because that will be the pathway to ensuring that Rwanda remains a key element of our basket of responses to illegal migration.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
We on the SNP Benches were very glad to see the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court today. It really is quite ridiculous for the new Home Secretary to come to the House today to tell us that his predecessor’s dream will never die. It has gone. Give it up! Do something else instead! Before the extremists on his own Benches start to blame the ECHR, the Supreme Court judge, Lord Reed, was very clear that this is not just about the ECHR, but about the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the international covenant on civil and political rights as well as our own domestic legislation.
The Supreme Court made it clear that Rwanda is not a safe country. At the heart of the judgment today is the principle of non-refoulement, which means that people must not be sent back into harm’s way. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees provided compelling evidence of Rwanda doing so, even after it signed the memorandum of understanding with the UK, as well as in its earlier deal with Israel. The UNHCR pointed out that it had rejected claims from countries such as Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. It is absolutely ludicrous that those claims could be rejected. It also pointed to the lack of integrity in Rwanda’s own systems. It is a serious problem and one that the Home Secretary claims today that he wants to fix, but he should focus his intentions instead on fixing the multiple failings of his own Department.
What now for the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and for the people who will now be left in immigration limbo without any recourse to claiming asylum? This incompetent Tory Government cannot yeet them back to Rwanda and they will not process their claims, so what will happen to that group of people? The solution lies not in puncturing the market in rubber dinghies, but in creating functioning safe and legal routes. In the first half of the year, the largest group in small boats were Afghans. That is proof positive that the schemes that the Government claim exist are just not working.
Many people make these dangerous journeys because they have no other option. That remains the reality whoever the Home Secretary is, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will stop wasting public money chasing fantasies. At least £1.4 million has been spent just on the legal challenges, never mind the rest of this incompetent scheme. When will he create a system that treats the most vulnerable in the world with the dignity and respect that they are due to rebuild their lives here in the UK?
The Immigration Minister has not even given Glasgow’s MPs the meeting that he promised to discuss the people that the Government are about to make homeless through their bulk processing. If the Home Secretary will not take seriously his responsibilities on immigration and on refugees, will he at least allow Scotland to have the right to do so, because we want to welcome people to our world?
James Cleverly
On the hon. Lady’s final point, if Scotland, or rather the Scottish Government—not the Scottish people—want to be more generous in practical terms to people seeking refuge here, they can do so. In my experience, they choose not to.
With regard to the work that we are doing, I made clear in my statement the various work strands that we are doing in close co-operation with countries around the world to address all elements of the illegal migration pipeline, including interrupting the logistics around this evil practice, and it is working. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that many other countries around Europe—countries that we have close working relationships with—are seeing a significant increase in their illegal arrivals, in stark contrast to the reductions we are seeing in the UK.
The hon. Lady talked about a number of things, but ultimately I am drawn to the remarks that the Court made about refoulement:
“The structural changes and capacity-building needed to eliminate that risk may be delivered in the future”.
That is exactly what we are seeking to address.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend and Essex neighbour to the great position of Home Secretary, and wish him well in all his endeavours on this incredibly difficult issue. He touched on the Supreme Court’s decision and its comments on refoulement. Today’s judgment was clear on that, but the issue is not new; it was raised earlier this year in the Court of Appeal. If I may say so, Ministers had the opportunity to address some of the practical measures prior to today’s judgment. I urge the Home Secretary to take every necessary step and measure to work with the Government of Rwanda on the practical, operational delivery of the migration and economic development partnership to give all those assurances. That partnership is clearly integral to ensuring that we break the business model and stop the evil trade of people smuggling. Addressing that principle will go a long way towards bringing in this essential deterrent in the illegal migration battle.
James Cleverly
My long-standing friend and predecessor is absolutely right. We will break the people-smuggling gangs. We will undermine their business model. We will pursue all the various workstreams that my right hon. Friend will be familiar with from her time in this fantastic office. In parallel, just as she suggests, we will work—indeed, we are already working—to address the issues raised by judges in the lower courts to ensure that we can prove what they need to see, which is that we will remove the risk of refoulement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role. This morning at the Home Affairs Committee, David Neal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told us that the biggest challenge facing the Home Office is being professional, maintaining objectivity, being fair and understanding human rights. The inspector also said that what keeps him up at night is the question of who is protecting our borders and whether they are doing so to the best of our collective abilities. Could the Home Secretary tell us whether today’s ruling on Rwanda proves or disproves Mr Neal’s concerns?
James Cleverly
The Government are responsible for the protection of this country, and it is a role and responsibility that we take incredibly seriously. It is the primary function of Governments. In this statement, and in the other statements I intend to make, and which Ministers from the Department will make from the Dispatch Box, we will show the House and the country that Conservative Members take that responsibility incredibly seriously, and we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the protection of the people and the borders of this country. It would be helpful, frankly, if the Labour party would break the habit seemingly of a lifetime and once in a while vote to support the actions that we take.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
As well as welcoming my right hon. Friend most warmly to this post—a post in which his and my former London Assembly constituents in Bexley and Bromley are massively proud to see him—I congratulate him on the tone and manner of his statement. It is right that, as a rule-of-law-abiding country, we respect the decisions of the courts however they go. The Supreme Court was asked a legal question and it gave a legal answer. Does he agree that it is clear that the decision is essentially fact-specific, applied to well-established legal principles, and the solution is, first, to look at how those facts can be rectified to make this compliant?
James Cleverly
My long-standing friend and former south-east London representative is absolutely right. Their lordships told us what we need to do to address their concerns. We intend to do what they said needs to be done. We will address their concerns, operationalise this plan, break the business model, and stop the boats.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Two per cent of those claiming asylum in this country are LGBTQI+ people fleeing countries where just being themselves can be a death sentence. Does the Home Secretary agree with his predecessor that they are pretending?
James Cleverly
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know my views on things, he can ask me for my views on things, rather than asking me to comment on other people’s views.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome the new Home Secretary to his place and share his disappointment at this morning’s judgment. As we have heard, the Supreme Court focused on the principle of non-refoulement. Hopefully that can be addressed in a new treaty. Perhaps it will be made more robust if we can work jointly with other European partners who have expressed an interest in a Rwanda-type scheme. Why, however, was this not considered in the original Rwanda treaty, and which Law Officer was responsible for giving legal advice to the Home Office about how it might stand up to challenge in the courts?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend knows that Government legal advice is for informing the decision-making of Ministers. It is not appropriate to discuss Government legal advice at the Dispatch Box, and we will not do so—he knows that. We always prepare for a range of eventualities, as I said in my statement. We recognised that this was one of the decisions that might come from the Court. We listened carefully to the statements made by the judges in the lower courts, and we have already started to take action in response to the concerns that they have raised.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I, too, welcome the new Home Secretary to the Dispatch Box. He has a difficult job, but it is in everyone’s interests that it be done well. I also welcome the part of his statement in which he said, “We are not going to put forward proposals simply to manufacture an unnecessary row for short-term political gain.” That much at least will be a refreshing change, but he should be aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, is reported as having told ITV that the Prime Minister should “ignore the laws” following the Supreme Court’s decision. Will the Home Secretary dissociate himself from those comments?
James Cleverly
This country prides itself on being a law-abiding country, so to hear the Government’s position on things, listen to the statements of Government Ministers. I have made it clear that we respect the judgment. We listened carefully to the comments made by their lordships and the lower courts. As I said, we are already responding to the comments that they made to ensure that the actions we take, when the Rwanda scheme is operationalised, are in strict accordance with international law.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary explain to those of us who are not experts in this area why it is that people who arrive illegally on our shores from a safe nearby country cannot immediately be returned to that safe nearby country? Clearly it would be in breach of certain laws, so can he set out, perhaps in a statement, what those laws might be?
James Cleverly
Receiving countries have to consent. That is the nub of the issue. That is why it is so important that Ministers in the Department, particularly the Immigration Minister, have spent so much time working with those countries from which we have traditionally received illegal migration, including France and others—most notably, in terms of the statistics, Albania, with which we have developed an excellent working relationship. I will claim a bit of credit here, because my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I formed something of a tag team with the Government in Tirana, and we are seeing the success that comes from pragmatic but determined relationships with European partners and others. I pay tribute to the Immigration Minister for that work.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I also warmly welcome the Home Secretary to his post, not least because I know people in the Foreign Office who were rather sad to see him go. However, let me try this question again: what does he think about the 2% of people who claim asylum on the basis of their sexuality because they face massive persecution and death threats in their own country? Does he think they are pretending to be lesbian, gay or bisexual? If he does, can he provide evidence for that?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman will know that we cannot prove a negative. That is a fallacy. I thank him for his kind words about my time as Foreign Secretary; he will know, since he clearly has a mole inside my old organisation, how passionately I pursued the rights of LGBT people around the world, including having some very difficult conversations where necessary. I absolutely want to make sure that those people are protected, but we should also recognise that bad people hide among good people and sometimes people lie to take advantage of the good will of others.
It is nonsense to suggest that everybody who claims to be suffering persecution because of their sexuality is lying, and I would certainly never say that, but we need to ensure that people are not attempting to abuse the process, as we do with any process or system, because that limits our ability to help those who genuinely are in need. I recognise that LGBT people do face genuine persecution around the world, and we want to support and help them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Much of the Supreme Court’s judgment today was encouraging, with a high court endorsing yet again the principle of what we are looking to do with Rwanda. As was touched on earlier, much of the decision turned on the facts, particularly those relating to refoulement—that is, the risk that those transferred to Rwanda might be returned to a country where they would face persecution. May I test my right hon. Friend on what work he is doing, looking at the decision-making capability of the Home Office, to help Rwanda to build up its own decision-making capability, and how our judiciary might work with Rwanda’s judiciary to address some of the Supreme Court’s points in that area?
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I meant to say my hon. Friend, although he deserves to be my right hon. Friend. I know that he did a lot of the work on this very subject, and his question goes to the heart of how we operationalise the Rwanda plan. Their lordships set out exactly the point he raises about capacity building and professionalising Rwanda’s system. I have had exchanges this morning with my Rwandan opposite number, who I have met before. The Rwandans are keen to build and strengthen their institutional structures, and they see us as a key partner in achieving that. Together we will work to operationalise this plan. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did on this very issue.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Supreme Court’s judgment has put paid to the lazy, ill-informed argument that it is the European convention on human rights, and only the European convention on human rights, that is blocking this Government on asylum and immigration. This Government have spent two years formulating a policy that has proven incompatible with a multitude of international treaties to which the UK is signed up and with numerous provisions of our domestic law. The Supreme Court was very clear about that. My question for the Home Secretary is this: when is he going to explain to his Back Benchers that the UK Government’s response to this judgment must be to produce a humane asylum policy that works, not to try to overcome vital checks and balances of the rule of law and human rights law that stymie bad policy decisions and protect human rights?
James Cleverly
Our immigration policies, as laid out in the figures I ran through in my statement, are having the positive effect that we committed to. We are bringing down small boat numbers, the need for hotel places and so on. I said in my statement that their lordships have set out the route to successfully operationalising the Rwanda scheme, through addressing those concerns about refoulement. We will focus on what we need to achieve to unlock that. We recognise that this is a constant battle against criminals and, as with all constant battles against criminals, we focus on what is effective and right. Their lordships set out exactly what that is, and that is what we will focus on.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I genuinely welcome my right hon. Friend to his place at the Dispatch Box. Speaking softly and carrying a big stick is always a very good way of behaving—no reference intended. I fully agree with all his intentions and the direction of travel in which he wants to go to settle this issue, in terms of proper organisation such that concerns are dealt with in the courts. Does he not agree that those who greet this judgment with glee need to remember that people are dying in the channel trying to cross in the boats?
Will the Home Secretary ask our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to come to the Dispatch Box in due course to reflect on the judgment? It appears to me that it is much wider than the migration judgment, because we are now linking directly to applicability in UK law agreements that were made with the UN that were never bound into UK law. Whether one wants it or not, that widens the whole issue of what becomes justiciable, and I would be grateful if she would come to the House at some point and deal with that.
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. My focus in this role is making sure that the Department is highly effective in protecting the British people and protecting our borders. This is not about trying to look tough; it is about trying to deliver for the British people, and that will be my relentless focus. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General reminds me that her advice, like that of all very good in-house lawyers, is limited to the client, which is His Majesty’s Government. However, I have no doubt I could persuade her to meet my right hon. Friend on a private basis.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his new role. I am sure he would want to join me in expressing gratitude to all those in our public services who came here as refugees and make such a fantastic contribution to our country. At the heart of this case are a series of asylum seekers, one of whom I know has been confirmed as a victim of trafficking. He has been stuck in an asylum hotel since May 2022. As yet, the Government have not even begun to look at his claim for asylum. Can the Home Secretary tell us when his Department will begin to process the claims of those people and get on with finding out whether they are illegal asylum seekers? Or is he just going to continue with the charade that he can make Rwanda workable?
James Cleverly
I do not have the details of the individual case that the hon. Lady raises, so I cannot comment on the specifics, but I remind her and the House that, as part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, eliminating that historic backlog of case files was a commitment. At the start of this process, the backlog stood at 91,000 cases; it has now been reduced to—
James Cleverly
Fewer than 30,000. So, we are delivering on our commitment to work through that backlog of cases. It was one of the areas where we made a commitment, we are delivering on it, and we will pursue all the elements of our plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I urge colleagues to be brief in their questions so that the Home Secretary can be brief in return. We have a very packed agenda today and I want to make every effort to get everyone in.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the Home Secretary on his new role. It seems to me that the key word is “time”. We cannot keep relitigating this question to achieve what seems an ever-moving target in what the courts want us to achieve. Our constituents sent us here with a very clear message: sort the small boats issue. Parliament has passed legislation to sort the issue. Can my right hon. Friend be specific about the point at which the attempts by the Government to recondition the agreement with Rwanda into treaty form will have elapsed, and a “notwithstanding” clause, of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has set out, will become the only tool by which we can ensure that the will of this House takes effect? We cannot allow this cycle to continue indefinitely.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that I did just say “be brief.”
James Cleverly
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s comments. We are absolutely determined to maintain the deterrent effect of the Rwanda scheme. To an extent, it is already demonstrating utility by the fact that we know—anecdotally, so I will not over-interpret these figures—that the fear of it as part of our arsenal is already having a deterrent effect, which is exactly what it was designed to do. National Governments cannot just vote themselves out of international commitments. I recognise, as a former Foreign Secretary, that they are incredibly powerful tools as we try to do good around the wider world. I give my right hon. Friend the commitment that we remain relentlessly focused on ensuring that we continue to drive down the small boat crossings using the full range of capabilities at our disposal.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Home Secretary and the Government are right to prioritise ending illegal migration. By my count, he spoke six times in his statement about having “a plan”; the only word he left out was “cunning”, because his plans seem to be as workable, effective and chaotic as Baldrick’s in “Blackadder”. That is no laughing matter, because while the plans are not working, there is still pressure on our infrastructure, there are still criminal gangs profiting from people’s misery, and people who use legal routes are being disadvantaged. Will the Home Secretary give us the commitment that, if the European Court of Human Rights continues to be a barrier to the will of this House, the Government will take action and ignore the demands of that court?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have a huge amount of respect for him. One point that I took from the judgment today is that it is not just about the ECHR. Their lordships set out a number of international commitments that we have made, but they also set out what we need to do to get the Rwanda plan up and running. That is on a very specific legal point, which we are already in the process of addressing.
I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because small boat arrivals are down, unlike almost everywhere else in Europe, where they are significantly up. The use of hotel bed spaces is down because of the arrangements that we have put in place. The speed of processing has increased, and the volume of processing of asylum claims has significantly increased. There are always multiple strands to this plan, as set out in the 10 points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward, and they are having the desired effect. We will just keep working to deliver on our commitments.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the glories of our parliamentary democracy is that Governments have to obey the law in the same way that individual citizens and corporations do? Does he also agree that those who look carefully at the judgment and think that there is a simple solution, with one lever to pull, will be disappointed?
James Cleverly
I shall quote a very wise woman, Giorgia Meloni—who was herself quoting an even wiser woman, Margaret Thatcher—by saying: this is a constant battle. In that battle, both domestically and internationally, one of our real strengths, as I saw as Foreign Secretary on the international stage, is that when we speak and demand that other countries abide by the rule of law, we are taken seriously because of our posture on this issue. We will continue to ensure that we abide by the rule of law while simultaneously—we have proven that we can do both—delivering on the commitments that we have made to driving down illegal migration and stopping the boats.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his new position. One fifth of my constituency casework relates to his Department, and it is a catalogue of human misery. In just one example from the hundreds that I could give, the claimant’s asylum application was made in December 2020, their interview was in November 2022, and they are still waiting for a decision. The claimant has two young children and has twice attempted suicide. That all comes at huge cost to them, the NHS and the police. Will the Home Secretary get a grip, stop the “magical thinking” and just fix his Department and the asylum process?
James Cleverly
I completely sympathise with the frustration that the hon. Lady’s constituent must feel, which is reflected in the frustration that I detect in the question. I remind her and the House that we never claimed that the Rwanda deal was the totality of our response to this issue. We made a commitment to increase the speed of decision making and to drive down the backlog, and we have demonstrably done that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents are disappointed by the judgment, but will be heartened by the Government’s commitment to stop the boats. As the Government threaten to take over RAF Scampton, my constituents are impatient and want the boats stopped as soon as possible. I understand that the Home Secretary’s plan is to upgrade the treaty with Rwanda. How long will that take, could it be subject to legal challenges, and if so, how long could those legal challenges take?
James Cleverly
I am not able to give certainty on timelines—I wish that I was—but my hon. Friend will know that I have a constituency interest in getting this right, as RAF Wethersfield in my constituency is being used as an asylum centre. In my conversations with the Minister for Immigration, in a constituency capacity, we discussed the need to drive down the demand for accommodation, be it at Scampton, Wethersfield or anywhere else. The best way of closing down Wethersfield and not needing Scampton is to stop the boats—[Interruption.] We are relentlessly focused on doing so, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) understands, for all the reasons that I have set out.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his position, and I welcome the court judgment this morning. I noticed in the Home Secretary’s statement a complete lack of empathy as to why people seek asylum in the first place—why people risk all, risk their lives, risk everything, to try to cross a dangerous channel to get to what they hope will be a place of safety. He is right to confirm that there is a massive global rise in the number of refugees. Should all Governments not work together to address the causes of that—poverty, wars, human rights abuses and all of those issues? Will he confirm that this country will not walk away from the important—although not perfect—advances made over the past decades by the European Court of Human Rights in improving human rights across Europe, including in this country?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer back to my previous role as Foreign Secretary. I can assure him and the House that a huge part of the work that is done by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is on exactly those issues: addressing climate change so that rural farmers in the developing world have crops that they can grow, sell and eat, and reducing the risk of conflict and persecution. We are addressing those drivers, but I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the idea that we can somehow uninvent illegal migration is naive beyond belief. We also have to address the fact that people are abused by criminals: they are used as a product to smuggle, and we have to break the business model of the people smugglers, as well as address the issues that drive people away from the countries from which they originate.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I add my voice to the general welcome to my right hon. Friend. He has told the House that his Department had anticipated the decision of the Supreme Court that was announced today. That being the case, can he tell the House whether he has made an assessment of whether legislation will be necessary to remedy the problems that have been identified? If so, when does he anticipate being in a position to introduce that legislation?
James Cleverly
I can assure my right hon. Friend that as a thoughtful and proactive Department, the Home Office looked seriously at the range of potential outcomes from the judgment. I cannot claim credit for that work, because much of it was done before my arrival. We have already set in place the work to turn the memorandum of understanding into a treaty, thereby addressing some of the concerns of their lordships, and the Prime Minister and I have both made it clear that if there needs to be domestic legislative work to ensure that we resolve this, we are unafraid of putting legislation forward.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I know from my recent visit to Colfe’s School that they will welcome their former pupil to his new role, as I do. I urge him to resist calls from people on his own Benches to remove us from the European convention on human rights. If we were outside that convention, a serious criminal or someone who means us harm—such as a terrorist, or someone suspected of terrorism—who seeks to hide overseas could legitimately claim that their human rights could be violated if they were extradited back to the UK. How is that taking back control of our borders?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will take the opportunity to go back to my old school and get their congratulations directly at some point. Of course, I will let the hon. Gentleman know that I will be treading on his hallowed turf.
The hon. Gentleman invites me to be distracted, but I refuse to be distracted: I will focus on what we need to do to achieve this policy. In their judgment, their lordships set out the route to operationalising the Rwanda plan, and I will focus on what they have told us will resolve the sticking points. There was much in the judgment to be welcomed, including all the elements about the fundamental soundness of the policy. We will focus on the thing that will unlock the operationalisation of the plan.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
How long will the Rwanda treaty take to get through? How long will it take to have the court case and the judgment, and have the whole thing crawled over again by human rights lawyers? Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend is a victim of our failure to stop the boats: he has Wethersfield in his constituency, as I have RAF Scampton in mine. He is a thoroughly nice chap, and I think that he feels my pain. Therefore, once the court case over Scampton is decided in the next week or two, whatever the result, will he meet me so that we can work together to get up to £300 million-worth of levelling up at Scampton?
James Cleverly
I am always delighted to meet my right hon. Friend. He will know, of course, that I am now in a position where I have to be careful about the commitments I make, certainly about RAF Wethersfield. I do not intend to abuse my position as Home Secretary, but I am absolutely committed to driving down the need for RAF Scampton and RAF Wethersfield, just as we have driven down the need for hotel accommodation. I am absolutely committed to that, but of course I will meet my right hon. Friend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We need to speed up if we are to get everybody in.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to his new role. The UK is absolutely entitled to create bespoke policy, and he referred to his constructive work with Albania, but does he understand—unlike his predecessor—that policy must be compatible with facts and the law, and that it should focus on the chaotic processing he has inherited and on funding the public services that he says are under pressure? Can I confirm that he acknowledges that the ECHR is a fundamental cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement, and that abandoning it would not be compatible with the Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland?
James Cleverly
Once again, the hon. Lady is asking me to comment on something in parallel to the things that I have set out. My commitment to her and the House is that we will focus on the things that will unlock this strand of our work. I cannot give her—or indeed anyone else in the House—guarantees about timescales, but we are already being effective on processing, on driving down the need for hotel accommodation and on speeding up decision making. All those things are part of the basket of activities that are helping us be a positive outlier compared with our European partners.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
There is a lot of tinkering going on here, but the real problem is parliamentary sovereignty. The rule of law, which my right hon. Friend referred to, is at the heart of this issue. If the law is clear and express, and uses a “notwithstanding” provision, as I proposed in an amendment a few years ago, it will deal with all these matters. If I may make a further point before the Attorney General jumps in, if we get the law right, we can then deal with what is effectively an international problem, while distinguishing between economic illegal migrants and proper refugees.
James Cleverly
I would caution the House against grasping for silver-bullet solutions. Sometimes, the most effective Government policy is just focus and graft. I assure the House that the Home Office, and the Ministers and officials within it, will be relentlessly focused on the daily work that needs to be done to address this issue. Of course we will look at what changes we need to make to operationalise the Rwanda scheme, but I urge people against grasping for silver-bullet solutions, which are rarely effective.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Rwanda scheme is callous, inhumane and ineffective; one might say the same about the former Home Secretary. That is why I welcome the new Home Secretary to his post, on the grounds that he could not possibly be any worse. I hope that he will consider the ethical dimension of this issue, since the Court has just ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country. Even if he does not, does he not agree that the scheme is simply not workable? It is not a good use of money, and it will take a huge amount of effort to get to a place where anyone is sent to Rwanda. Are there not much better ways of pursuing this issue and destroying the small boats model?
James Cleverly
Again, it is easy to criticise—it is easy to criticise ineffectually. Sadly, that is what I hear from Opposition Members far too often: no credible alternatives, just criticism. The point is that we are pursuing a number of workstreams that are already proving effective, which is why our numbers are going down at a time when all our European partners are seeing illegal arrivals go up. We will continue working on multiple strands and we will continue pursuing the Rwanda plan. When Labour Members finally decide to vote for something rather than against something, we will listen, but that day has not happened yet, and I do not expect it to happen any time soon.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I warmly welcome the tone and content of my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that in addition to the commitment to the ECHR, which is very much treasured by the settled refugee communities in my constituency, this is an opportunity to reinvigorate the work with France that has done so much to bear down on the number of small boat crossings in the way he has described?
James Cleverly
I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are doing extensive work with France—I once again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister—and it is working. This is the point: it is working, and therefore we will continue to pursue it.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the Home Secretary please answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss)? When are Glasgow MPs going to get a meeting with the Home Office to discuss those successful refugees who have been granted status? More widely, what discussions is he having with local authorities across the UK on rehousing successful refugees?
James Cleverly
My understanding is that officials from my Department meet regularly on these issues. If there are specific cases, the hon. Member should please bring them to my attention.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and I welcome his comments on the unfairness of illegal immigration for those who have come here legally. However, the Supreme Court’s verdict this morning is extreme comprehensive, and it reveals not just one obstacle, but multiple obstacles to deporting people from this country. If we want to deter the small boats, we need to be able to remove significant numbers of people extremely quickly. Given the comprehensive nature of the judgment this morning, can I encourage my right hon. Friend against an incremental approach? It is clear from the ruling that we need to do something stronger now. We chose in the Illegal Migration Act not to include “notwithstanding” provisions, but I think we do need them now.
James Cleverly
I hear the point my hon. Friend makes about a powerful deterrent—we are absolutely committed to that—but I do say again that, in circumstances as challenging as this, there are rarely silver-bullet solutions. In my whole time in government and in politics, I have never yet come across one. We have to pursue all our lines of effort, and I give him my assurance that we will continue to do so.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Would the money wasted on the Rwanda plan not have been more usefully spent on massively improving the application process to reduce illegal immigration and on establishing safe and legal routes to reduce the number of small boats?
James Cleverly
I am wondering whether the microphones are working. There has been a tenfold increase in the pace of asylum processing this last year. We are increasing it. The things are not mutually exclusive; we are doing all of them.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is great to have the Home Secretary in his new role, and to hear his confirmation that small boat arrivals are down not just by a fifth, but now by a third, and that he will find a treaty to resolve the remaining legal issues on the Rwanda deal. Will my right hon. Friend also encourage his officials to share the data on asylum applications that are over a year old with Members of Parliament, so that with our local councils we can prepare housing solutions in advance?
James Cleverly
I will absolutely take that idea on board. We want to do everything we can to make sure that this process is as quick and as smooth as possible.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The European convention on human rights was developed to ensure that Governments would never again dehumanise people and abuse their rights with impunity. So can the Secretary of State tell us: does the threat of revisiting international relationships really mean that his Government are ready to unpick our international relationships and treaties, including the ECHR, so that they can demonise with impunity those fleeing persecution and conflict? We say “never again”.
James Cleverly
Members have asked me the same question over and over again. I hate doing this, but I will refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role, and I agree with him that today we saw the Opposition mask slip. They have no wish to tackle this issue, and that is not surprising when their policy is to pass the numbers decision to the Leader of the Opposition’s mothership in Brussels. My constituents are absolutely fed up. Will my right hon. Friend speak directly to them, and address their concerns by saying that nothing will be off the table to get this sorted quickly?
James Cleverly
The Opposition are devoid of ideas. They criticise, but they put nothing forward. Their best plan is to list things that we are already doing, but object to other things that we are going to add to that basket of tools. That is why I can reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents that we, unlike them, will remain focused on serving the British people and stopping the boats.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
To go back to the European convention on human rights, because the Home Secretary has not been clear on this point, does he recognise that if the UK was to renounce the convention or tamper with it, that would undermine the Good Friday agreement, particularly around human rights and policing and justice; undermine the policing and justice co-operation aspect of the trade and co-operation agreement; and leave the UK in the company of Belarus and Russia?
James Cleverly
I am well aware of the implications of the European Court of Human Rights. I keep being invited to comment on something other than the text of my statement. I have made the Government’s position clear: we are focusing our attention on what we believe will unlock this important strand of a multi-strand approach to illegal migration.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Home Secretary will agree that the control of our borders is a defining issue for millions of people, so when the Prime Minister says that
“if necessary I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks”,
could we sharpen that up a bit to say that we will revisit our domestic legal framework, and will do so on multiple fronts in a timely way?
James Cleverly
We are focused on delivering for the British people and delivering quickly. As I say, we have always had a multi-strand approach, and we will make sure that the domestic legislative framework is fit for purpose and that we can deliver on our commitment to stopping the boats.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
When and how will the Home Secretary know that his treaties and legislative changes are giving the Court the certainty that it demands? Will he proactively go to the Court for a fresh ruling, or will he wait for third-party challenges and for the litigation merry-go-round to continue?
James Cleverly
I am not going to set out all the plans for how we will put this in place. We have already started the process for turning the MOU into a treaty. We are focused on addressing the specific issues raised by their lordships.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
In addition to voting against the Government 70 times on stopping the boats, the Opposition speak about natural dispersal when dealing with economic migrants. This means they often end up in Doncaster, where property is cheaper, rather than in the leafy suburbs of the liberal elites, but Doncaster is full. So will the Home Secretary do everything he can to put through the Rwanda treaty as soon as possible?
James Cleverly
I welcome the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is often the least well-off communities who feel the burden most heavily, and it is our duty to them to address these issues. I give him that commitment—on my recent trip to just outside his constituency, I got his name wrong, for which I apologise—and I will do exactly that.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
This morning I met a British Palestinian woman called Wafia, who told me that 30 members of her family have died in the last month in Gaza. She told me about her cousins, who so far have survived but are utterly traumatised and completely terrified. Should those cousins and their children somehow make it to these shores, albeit on the only route given to them by this Government—in other words, the dangerous small boats crossings—is the Home Secretary seriously telling me that he could look them in the eye and tell them not only that they will they not be joining Wafia, but that they will be going to Rwanda, which is his eventual plan, and will never be reunited with what remains of their family?
James Cleverly
I am not going to be drawn into making comments on specific individuals without knowing the circumstances; it would be ridiculous for anyone in the House to try to do immigration processing across the Dispatch Box like that. Of course I recognise the pain and suffering that Palestinian people in Gaza are experiencing—I have seen it. We have family reconciliation schemes as part of our safe and legal routes, but I am not going to make specific comments on individual cases, and the reason will be obvious to anyone who gives it any thought.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to know clearly and simply whether the Home Secretary, as well as looking at our legal framework here in the United Kingdom, will be willing to disapply international treaties and conventions such as the ECHR and the refugee convention in order to take back control of our borders—yes or no?
James Cleverly
I do not believe those things are necessary, but the point is that we remain focused on what we need to do. As I have said a number of times, there are no silver bullets. This requires constant work, constant vigilance and constant effort, and I give a commitment to my hon. Friend, and to the whole House, that that is exactly what we will continue to do.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
According to the Home Office’s own figures, it will cost £63,000 more to transport a vulnerable human being to Rwanda than to let them stay in the UK. So if the Government wanted to scrap this unlawful, inhumane and cruel policy, how much money would it save taxpayers?
James Cleverly
I do not agree. I do not agree with those numbers because—[Interruption.] No, I do not agree with the hon. Member’s interpretation of those numbers because, ultimately, that fails to take into consideration the cost to human lives of not deterring people, of putting their lives into the hands of criminals, and of putting their lives at risk on the open seas in small, dangerous dinghies. He should be conscious that deterring this evil trade is a human good and something we should pursue. I am amazed that he looks at it purely in pounds, shillings and pence, not in the cost to human life.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is classic Labour double standards when Labour Members appear to support the United Nations sending people to Rwanda but do not support the British Government doing the same?
James Cleverly
A friend of every country except their own, I think.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Home Secretary is clearly under a lot of pressure from his Back Benchers on this, but may I remind him that the ECHR is entwined throughout many years of devolved Parliament legislation, and indeed Scottish case law? What assurances can he give that his Government will not attempt to weaken or change the ECHR without consent from the devolved Administrations?
James Cleverly
With regard to amendments, when I was Foreign Secretary I made the point that if we want to preserve institutions, they need to evolve. Nothing should be caught in aspic or frozen in amber. Ultimately, once again, the hon. Lady asks me to be distracted from our core effort, which is delivering on our multi-strand approach to tackling illegal migration, and I refuse to do so.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, and the clear determination he has shown to stopping the boats. However, speed is the metric by which our constituents will judge us. Once the dust has settled on the judgment and it is clear whether we need a “notwithstanding” provision or other legislation, will he bring that to this House with the same speed that we brought through things such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, so that we can shut down the evil trade of people smuggling?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and my commitment, which is echoed by the Prime Minister, is that we will look at our domestic legislative framework and take action. We have passed one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation and we are unafraid to do so. This is core to the lives of the British people and their confidence in the security of their country, and it is core to our mission as a Government.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
What the Home Secretary is ultimately arguing for is a system whereby rich western countries get to pack off asylum seekers and refugees to poorer countries that already bear a vastly disproportionate share of responsibility for sheltering refugees around the world. There is zero evidence that that will work, and an abundance of evidence of the harm it does to the individuals caught up in it. Is it not the case that this is not just illegal, but immoral and impracticable?
James Cleverly
So what would the hon. Gentleman do? Would he say that every person in the world—[Interruption.] The world is a big place, and there are lots of people in it. Is he credibly saying that anybody choosing to come here by any means, including through the hands of evil criminals, should automatically have the right to stay? It is an untenable position. We are addressing poverty and conflict in the developing world. We are addressing climate change, which is affecting farmers in the developing world. We are doing all those things, but we are also discharging our duty to the British people to protect their borders. If he does not feel that that is a function of Government, then he is wrong.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I first raised this issue in this place on 18 May 2020. The Rwanda scheme was stuck in the courts for 18 months. Enough is enough. Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the tools in his basket needs to be a deterrent that is robust, and that timescales matter? I have had enough, and all of my constituents have had enough. This is a matter of critical importance. Does the Home Secretary agree?
James Cleverly
I remind my hon. Friend that we are already seeing success, and that success is accelerating because of the measures we have put in place. He is right to say that we need a deterrent for people making those dangerous crossings, and a deterrent for the illegal criminals. We are determined to deliver that, and we will do so in the face of the Opposition, who are desperately trying to prevent us from doing so.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much hope that the measures my right hon. Friend has set out will allow us to deliver the Rwanda plan as soon as possible. Will he also look—I have asked for this on a number of occasions—at other third countries that we could form partnerships with, to deliver more processing overseas in a number of those locations?
James Cleverly
I assure my hon. Friend that in addition to the conversations with Rwanda, which are well progressed, we are having similar conversations with a number of other countries. Indeed, our policy is now being adopted in large part by a number of other European countries whose circumstances are considerably worse than ours. We are absolutely leading the field on this issue.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I warmly welcome my fellow Essex colleague to his place and wish him every success. I welcome his commitment to a tough but fair policy on immigration. The people of Southend are particularly concerned that if we do not resolve the issue of illegal migration, we are preventing people who have served our country from coming here legally to safety. Does he agree?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and a number of people have mentioned the humanity of this. It should be the elected Government of a country who decide who can and cannot come to that country; it should not be criminals, smugglers or people who prey on the weak. That would be the by-product of a failure to address the issue, and that is what we see from the Opposition—a complete vacuum where policy should live. That vacuum encourages illegality and criminality, and that is what we are seeking to address.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his place and thank him for the outstanding job he did in his previous brief. Rwanda is a country that we do business with, a country with a thriving economy, and a country that the Leader of the Opposition’s football team even promotes as a tourist destination. Bearing that in mind, will the Government consider whether it may be appropriate to add Rwanda to the list of safe countries?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and one of the few things that the former Leader of the Opposition and I share is a passion for Arsenal football club. Rwanda is a country that is developing fast, and it is a close partner. They listen carefully when we talk to and work with them, and I have no doubt that working closely with them we will bring this scheme into operation, and put forward the deterrent that will be a really important strand of our multi-strand approach to illegal migration.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Although I welcome the steady progress being made to close asylum hotels, I am extremely disappointed that the Metropole in Blackpool is yet to be vacated. That hotel is located in the poorest ward in the entire country bar none, and the pressure on my local community and public services is immense. Is the Home Secretary able to assure me that in the next batch of hotel closures, socio-economic conditions will be taken into account, and that the Metropole will finally be closed?
James Cleverly
I listened careful to my hon. Friend’s point, and he reinforces the issue that I think is key: it is very easy for people to be generous of spirit when someone else is bearing the burden. The people in his constituency and the immediate neighbourhood of the Metropole hotel are, as he said, not wealthy people, yet they are the ones disproportionately bearing the brunt of illegal migration. That is why we are committed to helping them, and other people like them across the country, by getting a grip of this evil trade and stopping the boats.
Point of Order
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has recently come to light that a Conservative donor’s firm has been awarded an £11.5 million contract to supply schools affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete with temporary classrooms. David Wernick of Wernick Buildings Ltd, a Tory councillor and previous chair of a Conservative association, has donated £71,000 to the Tories and won Government contracts with a combined total of £20 million. I wish I could say it shocks me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but given this Government’s record, it does not.
On 5 September, I asked a written question to the Department for Education, asking specifically for details of the portacabin providers it had contracted to provide that temporary accommodation. I stated clearly that I wanted the names of the firms contracted. In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston), failed to provide a substantive and specific answer to my specific question. It is not acceptable for Ministers to reply with obfuscation and avoidance, and I am increasingly concerned that that is becoming the norm in response to parliamentary questions. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members can ensure that in future we get clear, concise and correct responses from the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As I am sure she knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of answers to parliamentary questions. Mr Speaker has always made it clear that he wants as much transparency and accuracy as possible. The hon. Lady is fortunate, as I believe the Minister would like to make a point of order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know anything about the first point of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), but on her second point, I will ask the Schools Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to write to her and explain which companies are involved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister said that the Government will provide some further information. I am sure that if the hon. Lady does not find that satisfactory, she will come back, but does she wish to make a further point of order?
Dawn Butler
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for that response. If he could please provide information on whether any competition took place before the award of the contract, that would be useful.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I suggest that at this point we do not get into too many details about what will be in the response, but we have started the ball rolling. We await that information being supplied to the hon. Lady, and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what I said about accuracy and transparency.
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have an announcement to make about the election of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Nominations closed at 1 pm for the position of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Only one nomination has been received, so there will not be a ballot. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on his re-election.
Debate on the Address
Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 125 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 25 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (r) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendment (h) in the name of Stephen Flynn, the Scottish National party leader, and amendment (k) in the name of Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, which will both be moved at the end of the debate.
Colleagues will know there is significant interest in the debate, so they should expect an early—if not immediate—time limit, which is likely to be five minutes. I want to give warning of that so that people can adjust their speeches accordingly. If they no longer wish to speak, they should let me know.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (r), at the end of the Question to add:
“and submit to Your Majesty that this House wishes to see an end to the violence in Israel and Palestine; unequivocally condemn the horrific terrorist attack and murder of civilians by Hamas, call for the immediate release of all hostages and reaffirm Israel’s right to defend its citizens from terrorism; believe all human life is equal and that there has been too much suffering, including far too many deaths of innocent civilians and children, over the past month in Gaza; reaffirm the UK’s commitment to the rules-based international order, international humanitarian law and the jurisdiction of the ICC to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza and Hamas’s attacks in Israel; call on Israel to protect hospitals and lift the siege conditions allowing food, water, electricity, medicine and fuel into Gaza; request the Government continue to work with the international community to prevent a wider escalation of the conflict in the region, guarantee that people in Gaza who are forced to flee during this conflict can return to their homes and seek an end to the expansion of illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank; and, while acknowledging the daily humanitarian pauses to allow in aid and the movement of civilians, believe they must be longer to deliver humanitarian assistance on a scale that begins to meet the desperate needs of the people of Gaza, which is a necessary step to an enduring cessation of fighting as soon as possible and a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution.”
When the Prime Minister opened the King’s Speech debate just eight days ago, we had all this briefing about how it was a “Rishi reset” moment. So much of a flop was it, that having made promises just eight days ago about the changes his Government would deliver, now he is talking about the changes to his Government instead. We have another reshuffle and another Rishi reset—not change, just more of the same chaos. We remember his conference claim that he was rejecting decades of failure, including the last 13 years of Tory Government. Just a month later, he has brought back one of the main Tory architects in the former Prime Minister, who cut 20,000 police officers, brought in the bedroom tax and austerity, and pushed working families and children into poverty. It is a sign of the state of the Tory party that the Prime Minister who did all that is now suddenly seen as a moderate.
Instead of a Government focused on the problems facing the country, whether the cost of living crisis, record NHS waiting lists or rising town centre crime and serious violence, what we have got is just more of the same Tory psychodrama and chaos. In the past seven and a half years, we have had five Prime Ministers, six Chancellors, seven Health Secretaries, seven Foreign Secretaries, eight Home Secretaries and 11—I think I counted right—Justice Secretaries.
Yvette Cooper
Eight Justice Secretaries—it has been a struggle to keep count of their changing. We have had eight Home Secretaries in less than eight years and, even worse, two of them were the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). She was so unsuited for the job of Home Secretary that she was sacked twice: once for breaching security rules in government, and the second time for undermining security on our streets, attacking the police, undermining respect for the decisions they took in the run-up to a difficult weekend, ramping up division around remembrance and making it harder for the police to do their job. No other Home Secretary would ever have done those things. It shows how little this Prime Minister cares about our security that he was prepared to reappoint her, to defend her and to follow her wherever she led, and now we know why.
The dodgy deal that the Prime Minister denied last year is now laid bare in the former Home Secretary’s letter. She says:
“Despite you having been rejected by a majority of Party members…and thus having no personal mandate to be Prime Minister”.
Fair point there. She goes on:
“This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you.”
Obviously that is another sign of her poor judgment. The deal made him Prime Minister and made him make her the most unsuitable Home Secretary this country has had.
The Conservatives published their latest Criminal Justice Bill yesterday. It has measures that Labour called for to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I was going to make the point that the Government have no ideas of their own and are just following Labour’s lead, but I have to concede that they and the Tory party in general are definitely the experts on antisocial behaviour. The former Home Secretary is throwing rocks and stones. The New Conservative group is making dark threats, going round the parliamentary Tory party nuisance-begging for no-confidence letters in the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is so desperate to find out how many letters have gone in to the chair of the 1922 committee, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) that he is now camped outside his office, but I guess they told us it was a lifestyle choice.
While the Tories fight culture wars with each other, the rest of us are worried about security on our streets. The new Home Secretary has briefed that he did not want to take over the job, but he has agreed to take one for the team. Let me just say to him and to all Government Front Benchers: if they do not want to run the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice and cannot see how to do the job, they should get out the way for those of us who can. Our country is crying out for a Government who care about tackling crime, restoring security to our streets and restoring confidence in the police, rather than a Tory Government chasing headlines and fighting among themselves.
The Government want to tell us that all is fine on the number of police and the level of crime, but they are badly out of touch, because that is not what it feels like across the country, and nothing in the King’s Speech will touch the sides. We have 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police on our streets. Half the country say they never see a bobby on the beat. Knife crime is up by 70%, devastating young lives. We have persistent violence against women and girls across our country. That is the Conservatives’ abysmal legacy on law and order.
Labour has set out a mission on crime to halve serious violence including knife crime and violence against women and girls, to reverse the catastrophic collapse in the proportion of crimes solved, and to rebuild confidence in the police and criminal justice system by getting 13,000 more neighbourhood police on the streets and tackling town centre crime. However, what do we have in the King’s Speech? The Criminal Justice Bill includes measures that Labour called for long ago, but it does not tackle enough of the serious problems that our country faces or make up for the damage that has been done. We support making sure that the most serious and dangerous criminals properly serve their time, but, frankly, too few criminals are actually caught or charged in the first place. Under this Government, more than 90% of crimes go unsolved. For those who commit a crime, the chances of being caught and punished are less than half what they were under the last Labour Government. That is the scale of collapse in law and order under the Tories.
On knife crime, the measures go nowhere near far enough. On violence against women and girls, I am really concerned because there is nothing on spiking, nothing serious on stalking and nothing to turn around the woeful fact that 98% of rapists avoid charge. The Government’s sentencing proposals may mean that thousands of domestic abusers whose violence is escalating will be let off jail.
There is nothing at all on town centre crime. Shoplifting is up a shocking 25% in a year. Assaults on shop workers tripled during the pandemic and have not gone down again. This is Freedom From Fear Week, and I thank the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the British Retail Consortium for the work they are doing to stand up for staff safety and shine a light on the disgraceful way in which people are being treated just for doing their jobs. But why are the Government not listening to them? Labour is, and we will change the law. We will table amendments to the crime and justice Bill to ditch the ridiculous £200 rule that stops action from being taken against repeat shoplifting gangs and to bring in a proper new offence of assaulting shop workers, because everyone has the right to feel safe at work.
On national security and some of the core issues that affect the safety of our nation, in the past we had broad cross-party consensus and worked together in that spirit. Labour will always stand ready to do so. Security Ministers and shadow Security Ministers have done so before, and that is the spirit in which we will work on the national security Bill. That is also the spirit in which we would always have expected to approach the operational independence and impartiality of British policing. The last Home Secretary undermined that; I hope that the new Home Secretary will be able to restore it, because this is too important for us to disagree on.
It is likewise for the safety and cohesion of our communities. We have seen tensions increase as a result of the truly awful events in the middle east. There has been an appalling rise in antisemitism, including some disgraceful incidents this weekend, with Jewish communities feeling enormous anguish and distress. We have also seen an awful increase in Islamophobia and the rise of organised far-right thuggery about which the police raised concerns this weekend. Every one of us in this House must be clear that violence and hate crime have no place on Britain’s streets and must face the full force of the law. We must all back the police in taking the action that is needed.
I thank the police for the reassurance work they are doing with synagogues, Jewish schools and mosques as well as their action against the hate crimes that devastate lives and corrode communities. I say to the Justice Secretary and the new Home Secretary that Labour has called for stronger action to tackle both antisemitism and Islamophobia and hateful extremism. Again, we stand ready to work with the Government and see what we can do to come together to address these serious issues, because there is a responsibility on all of us to bring our communities together.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), will speak later about Labour's amendment in more detail, but every one of us will have been deeply disturbed by the terrible events in the middle east. We want an end to the devastating violence and suffering. We have seen 11,000 Palestinians killed; two thirds of them women and children. Thousands of innocent children are dead. Families are bereaved and parents grieving. It is intolerable. Hundreds of hostages are still being held following the gravest attack on Jewish people on any day since the holocaust. Israeli families are still experiencing the horror and the trauma as the remains of their loved ones are still being identified. Families and communities are still reeling from the events.
We all condemn the truly barbaric attack by Hamas terrorists on 7 October. Under international law, we respect countries’ right to defend their citizens from terrorist attacks and also countries’ obligations to abide by international law. The conduct of war matters. As Antony Blinken said at the very start of the conflict,
“how Israel does this matters. We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard, even when it is difficult…Our humanity—the value that we place on human life and human dignity—that’s what makes us who we are.”
The rules-based order must not be abandoned.
That is why we must commit to recognising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to address the conduct of all parties in the conflict. But it is also why we need an urgent suspension of hostilities: not just a short pause, but, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has set out, the time and space to get in fuel, food and water, to rebuild vital humanitarian infrastructure, to protect aid workers, who are losing their lives on a scale we have never seen before in conflict, to put in place protection for civilians and negotiate hostage releases, and to work towards a full cessation of violence and enduring peace so that lives can be saved and the intolerable suffering can end.
We know that that requires immense and complex diplomatic work. It is not easy. We have words on a page that we will talk about voting on today, but we all know that it is not through words on a page that this will be achieved; it will be achieved through step-by-step intense diplomacy and pressure that recognises how difficult it is when Hamas refuse to agree to stop rocket attacks and pledge again to repeat the attacks of 7 October. We recognise, too, that hostages are still being held, but we still have to make urgent diplomatic progress. We still have to do what we can right now to save lives and make progress in getting hostilities suspended, especially so that humanitarian action can be taken.
We recognise, too, that the only way forward is a two-state solution with a secure and safe Israel alongside a secure and sovereign Palestine. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary was right to say yesterday that
“neither the long-term security of Israel nor long-term justice for Palestine can be delivered by bombs and bullets.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 510.]
That is why there is a responsibility on all of us to urge the UK Government to do what they can—to strain every sinew—in the pursuit of peace.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
The first duty of any Government—its most serious and solemn responsibility—is to keep its people safe. Since 2010, overall levels of crime are down by more than 50%. Domestic burglary is down by 57%, violent crime by 52%, vehicle-related theft by 39%, and the number of young people admitted to hospital following an assault with a knife or other bladed weapon has fallen by 26%. In fact, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Andy Cooke, has said that
“England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been.”
That is because the Government have taken decisive measures, including recruiting 20,000 police officers so that we can cut crime and keep our communities safe. We have made robust punishments available for the worst criminals to keep the most serious offenders in custody for longer, and we have commissioned the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era.
The Gracious Speech builds on that record with a range of long-term decisions that keep public protection at the heart of the Government’s agenda for our country. I want to start with tackling violence against women and girls, on a point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That is a priority for the Government, and for me personally, but let us step back to reflect on some of the progress made in the last decade or so. The right hon. Lady referred to the offence of stalking and said that she wanted some progress. She will recall that in the 13 years that she was in Government, there was no offence or crime of stalking. We are the party that created it so that behaviour described as “murder in slow motion” could be properly addressed. Then we doubled the maximum sentence.
Yvette Cooper
Let me correct the Secretary of State. He may not recall, but I tabled one of the first amendments on reform to introduce a stalking law. That same amendment was eventually taken up in the other place by the Labour lords, and the Conservative Government agreed to it. I am very glad that they did, but he should not take credit for agreeing to a Labour proposal that I and others put forward.
Alex Chalk
I am delighted to debate this with the right hon. Lady. Thirteen years, and it was not on the statute book. When did it come on to the statute book? In 2012. She had 13 years, and she missed her opportunity. This is the party that put it on the statute book.
The right hon. Lady referred to other matters of violence against women and girls. This is the party that created the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour. We are the party that slayed the myth that abuse is perpetrated only with punches, kicks and other physical violence. We know that it is not, and we acted to outlaw it. We introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, creating a new domestic abuse commissioner and ending abuses such as the ability of DA perpetrators to cross-examine victims. We created a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation, and made clear that the cowardly so-called “rough sex gone wrong” defence for murder does not exist.
We delivered radical improvements to the victims code to secure entitlements for victims, including the automatic right for eligible victims to be told when a perpetrator is due to leave prison. There is a 24/7 rape support helpline, more than 950 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers. We have outlawed upskirting and revenge porn, and introduced the most wide-ranging modern slavery legislation probably anywhere in the world. Over the last year, we have built on that work by ensuring that violence against women and girls is now recognised as a national threat, just like terrorism and organised crime. It is also included in the strategic policing requirement.
When I began my career in the courts, violence behind closed doors was all too often passed off and trivialised as a “domestic”, with no action taken. Not any more. We see it for what it is: corrosive, cruel and devastating. Those responsible are no longer beyond the reach of the law.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State on his speech. He will know that the figures for Northern Ireland are the worst in the whole of Europe. A total of 27 women have been murdered in Northern Ireland by an intimate partner, relative or family member since 2017. Those figures are shameful and discouraging for us all. Would he encourage the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland to follow suit on any legislation on tackling violence against women and girls, so that Northern Ireland is not left behind?
Alex Chalk
Yes, I would. I look forward to the restoration of the Assembly so that these important priorities can be pursued.
Let me turn to the issue of rape, which I heard mentioned sotto voce from the Opposition Benches. In 2021, we launched a rape review to drive up the criminal justice system’s response to this crime. We committed to total transparency on the data, publishing dashboards about reports, charges and receipts in the Crown court, so that any member of the public could see what was taking place at the touch of a button. We identified levers to drive forward the effectiveness and efficiency of the system, including rolling out technology to ensure that evidence from mobile phone devices could be harnessed rapidly, without victims being separated for long periods from what can be a lifeline. We set out ambitions that many commentators said were unachievable, and we brought Government Departments together, literally—sitting around the same table to prosecute our mission on behalf of victims. Of course, there is always further to go, but the progress made is significant. The volume of adult rape cases reaching court since 2019 has doubled.
Meanwhile, seeing as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford wanted to put us under the microscope, let me make these points. The situation compared with 2010 is striking. More cases of rape are being prosecuted. The conviction rate is higher. Sentences are longer and, importantly, the proportion of those sentences spent in custody is significantly increased, too. To the political points that the right hon. Lady made, she was in Government and voted for the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 244 of which, if she wants to remember, made sure that every single rapist was released at the halfway mark. If they were sentenced to 10 years, she voted to ensure that they were released after five. We have changed that. This Government say that that is not right, not fair on victims and not just. She needs to account for her actions. We have invested £24 million in Operation Soteria, which brings together the police, prosecutors and academics to develop a new approach to rape and sexual offences. There is now a clear expectation that investigations must focus on a suspect’s behaviour, not on the victim’s supposed credibility.
Let me turn to the police. Becoming a police officer is a noble calling. To sign up is to commit to running towards danger when others flee. It means engaging with the most threatening people in society, but also the most vulnerable. That demands judgment as well as skill and integrity. Given the power that officers necessarily wield, it is essential that those who wear the uniform are competent, decent and honest. A small minority of officers fall short of the required standard. In recent years, some have transgressed in the worst ways possible. That inevitably shook public confidence in the police.
Baroness Casey’s review of the Met made for deeply concerning reading, and the first part of the Angiolini inquiry is focused on the career of the serving officer who raped and murdered Sarah Everard. Part two will look at broader issues in policing and the safety of women. Earlier this year, the Government launched a review into police officer dismissals, and the Home Office has recently announced a number of measures to strengthen the system as a result of that review. There will be a presumption of dismissal for those found to have committed gross misconduct. We are handing back responsibility for chairing misconduct hearings to senior police officers, while retaining independence in the system.
The College of Policing has strengthened the statutory code of practice for police vetting, making the obligations on police chiefs stricter and clear, as was published in July. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has found that forces have made progress on vetting. They must not let up. All police forces have cross-checked their workforce against the police national database to help to identify anyone not fit to serve and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will provide an update on its findings in January. The Government will change the law to ensure that all officers who are unable to maintain vetting clearance can be sacked.
The Criminal Justice Bill includes a duty of candour, requiring police chiefs to ensure an ethical culture in their forces. In August, the previous Home Secretary wrote to policing leaders, asking them to outline their plans to increase visibility and confidence in local policing and to report back on progress by next March. Confidence in policing is not just about individual behaviour but about the performance of each force. There is no such thing as a trivial crime. The public expect the police to follow all reasonable lines of inquiry, and the Government have secured a pledge from all forces to do so. That pledge applies to all crimes, and the public expect to see improvements in the approach to phone theft, car theft, criminal damage and shoplifting.
At the heart of the Government’s legislative programme for the forthcoming parliamentary Session are our plans to keep the British people safe. Our Sentencing Bill has public protection at its core. There are two elements to our approach. For people who commit the most horrific murders, such as murders with sexual or sadistic conduct, the public are protected by keeping them where they belong—out of circulation, behind bars for the rest of their life, unless the court finds exceptional circumstances. That is how they can be prevented from inflicting any more damage to individuals and to society. Our Bill also means that rapists and those convicted of the most serious sexual offences will serve every day of their custodial term behind bars. That is night and day compared with the regime we inherited in 2010. At that time, a rapist sentenced to 10 years was out in five. Now, a rapist sentenced to 10 years will serve the full term.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent speech and doing excellent work. He has not mentioned the crime of terrorism, which is one of the most serious, and he has not had a chance to mention the amendment that we will vote on today. There is grave concern that the greater the loss of civilian life in the middle east is, the greater the likelihood of radicalisation and increased terror at home. Does he agree that those of us who believe that now is not the right time to call for a full ceasefire, because of the difficulty of giving it, are not giving Israel a moral blank cheque to continue with operations in the way it has so far? Protecting civilian life is vital to prevent future terrorism here and elsewhere.
Alex Chalk
My right hon. Friend puts it well. Anyone who has observed what has taken place cannot fail but to be filled with anguish and distress, so of course it is the case that a nation’s right to defend itself is a right to do so consistent with international law. The Government are very clear on that, as indeed I think are most people in the House, but she puts the point well.
Protecting the public, which is the theme I am seeking to stress, also demands that we follow the evidence about what works to prevent reoffending. If reoffending goes down, crime goes down. If crime goes down, the public are protected.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor, who was quite right earlier to reject the attempt at revisionist history on stalking by those on the Labour Benches. He and I worked very closely together on the initial change to the legislation. Does he agree with me that there is an opportunity in the next police, crime and sentencing Bill to also address something that would help to protect some of our young people, which is the issue of spiking? There is a real opportunity to update the 1861 law, give a clear definition of spiking and send a very clear message to all those who might be tempted to do so.
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. He did extraordinarily important work on stalking. He understands, as I do, that it is a wicked crime that leaves women in particular feeling very vulnerable. We acted when others did not and revisionism is to be deprecated; I strongly agree with him. On spiking, my hon. Friend is a tremendous campaigner. He is right that the legislation that is apt to capture this offence is within the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It provides police with powers, but he makes a powerful point. He will continue to make such points and we will consider them with care.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an interesting speech. I expect he will share my disquiet that we presently have 600 vacancies for police in Scotland which are not going to be filled. An independent councillor in the highlands called Matthew Reiss, himself a senior retired police officer, has said that the thin blue line is going to get thinner. Without police, we cannot do the sort of things that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about—in other words, catching the criminals and making people feel secure. Could he, in his capacity, share his best practice with the Scottish Government in the future?
Alex Chalk
What a very kind offer. I am sure that call will be echoed by those in the SNP Benches in front of the hon. Gentleman. We, of course, would be delighted to share any best practice. He makes a very serious point. To do all the things we want to do to protect vulnerable people requires boots on the ground—it requires police officers. That is why we are proud of the fact that in this jurisdiction the number of police officers stands at, or close to, an all-time high. We would be happy to commend that approach to our friends north of the border.
On public protection, taking the most serious offenders out of circulation is how we stop them committing crime. But we also want to follow the evidence about what works to prevent reoffending, because that is also how we keep the British people safe. The evidence—not sentiment, evidence—shows that those on immediate prison sentences of less than 12 months are significantly more likely to reoffend than similar offenders who get sentences in the community. They are over 50% likely to reoffend, as compared to less than 25% for those who are required to adhere to tough conditions, with a risk of going to prison if they fail to comply. Let me be clear about what that means. Those who are on suspended sentence orders are required to comply with onerous requirements—be they unpaid work orders, alcohol rehabilitation requirements or whatever—on pain of going straight to prison if they fail to comply. The evidence shows that people see that as a powerful deterrent.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend will want to comment, in that context, on persistent offenders, because he will know that there are many offenders who persistently offend and commit crimes that would not attract a sentence of more than 12 months. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke of shoplifting, for example. Criminal damage would be another example, as would antisocial behaviour. Some 30% of persistent offenders commit 80% of crimes. Is he really saying that none of them should go to prison?
Alex Chalk
On the contrary. I know that my right hon. Friend rightly, on behalf of his constituents, wants to ensure that those who destroy lives and have a corrosive impact on communities are brought to book. That is why the provisions have been carefully constructed and calibrated to ensure that those who are unable or unwilling to abide by an order of the court can expect to hear the clang of the prison gate. Not only will the proverbial sword of Damocles be hanging over them, but for those who commit an offence when they are subject to a court order—be it a supervision order, a community order or a non-molestation order—the presumption no longer applies. We send a clear message to criminals: obey the order of the court or expect to go to prison.
Judges will retain their discretion to impose immediate custody when an offender poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual—this is to the direct point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford—so that domestic abuse offences and other violent offences against women and girls can and will continue to be punished, with immediate custody protecting victims. Nothing changes, but for those whose sentence is suspended, the courts will be able to continue to use a range of requirements, including curfews, electronic tags, community payback and exclusion requirements. Those who do not comply or who commit further offences can be brought back to court and risk being sent to prison.
Alongside that, we want to ensure that we have the prison places to keep serious and dangerous offenders locked up for longer, while allowing lower risk offenders to benefit from community-based restrictions to assist with their resettlement, get back into work and start contributing to society where that can be safely managed. For that reason, we are extending home detention curfew to offenders serving sentences of over four years and keeping our tough restrictions that prevent serious violent, sexual and domestic abuse offenders from accessing this facility.
The Criminal Justice Bill includes measures that deliver on three strategic objectives: first, protecting the public from violence and intimidation; secondly, enabling law enforcement agencies to respond to changing technology deployed by criminals, including by equipping them with sufficient powers to address emerging types and threats; and thirdly, strengthening public confidence in policing. We will protect the public from violence and intimidation by strengthening the law on the taking of intimate images without consent and expanding the offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. We used to have happy times on the Justice Committee together when we were little striplings. What he is saying sounds good, but my question is this. Last year, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and I amended the Public Order Act 2023 to stop intimidatory protests against women using abortion clinics. Although it was passed, that is the only section that has not been enacted. Ealing Council does not know whether to renew its temporary order, which is coming up again. If the law was passed and enacted, it should not have to. Can he tell Ealing Council and the whole country what to do when women every day face intimidation?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We did indeed have a productive and non-partisan time on the Justice Committee. On the specific important point she raises, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), will address that point in closing—but essentially, it will happen in due course.
We will protect the public from violence and intimidation by strengthening the law on the taking of intimate images, as I have indicated. We will increase the multi-agency management requirements on offenders convicted of coercive or controlling behaviour. As I say, that was not an offence in 2010. We are implementing a further recommendation in the domestic homicide sentencing review, giving judges the discretion at sentencing to add a statutory aggravating factor for a killing connected to the end of a relationship, many of which are committed where there has been a history of coercive or controlling behaviour. That man who says, “If I can’t have you, no one will” can expect a more serious penalty.
Finally, it is a further insult to families when perpetrators refuse to appear in the dock to face up to the consequences of their actions, so it is quite right that we will give judges the power to order offenders to court and punish those who refuse.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has outlined some measures to protect women who face really horrific abuse. I have been campaigning on the key issue of girls who are associated with gangs. The fact is that they are groomed and used by gang members for horrific crimes, and those girls are then victimised and imprisoned. Does he agree that we should have a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, so that girls do not continue to face that horrific ordeal?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady has made a very important point. I will not bore the House with war stories, but I remember defending a young woman—17 years old. She had been abused by her boyfriend, who had put pressure on her to hold a MAC-10 firearm. The police, of course, then arrested her, and she was at risk of a mandatory minimum sentence of three years, although she had been put under all that pressure by her boyfriend. The courts do have discretion to take personal circumstances into account, and in that case, when the court found that there had been exceptional circumstances, it was not bound to impose the mandatory minimum sentence. It is always worth recalling that in a fair society, before independent courts, there is an opportunity for important points of mitigation to be advanced. The hon. Lady also made a point about grooming, and I now want to turn to the issue of protecting children in that regard.
In April, the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary announced a package of measures to tackle child sexual exploitation, grooming and abuse, so that our law would keep pace with criminals’ latest warped ingenuity. We are introducing a statutory aggravating factor at sentencing for grooming behaviour in connection with sexual offences committed against under-18s in order to tackle those involved in grooming gangs. There is also a new child sexual exploitation police taskforce—that means analysts in every police region—and a new complex and organised child abuse database. Tackling organised exploitation programmes have also been rolled out, bringing together force-level, regional and national data and intelligence.
The Criminal Justice Bill also takes the fight to criminals. Articles used in serious crime, such as templates for 3D-printed firearm components and pill presses, will be prohibited. The Government have secured from the police agreement to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, and the Bill creates a power to enter premises without a warrant to seize stolen goods such as mobile phones. The operation of serious crime prevention orders will be strengthened to make it easier for police and other law enforcement agencies to place restrictions on offenders or suspected offenders and prevent them from participating in further crime.
The Bill brings further action on the scourge that is knife crime: that includes creating a power to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles found on private property that are likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence, increasing the maximum penalty for the sale of prohibited weapons and for selling knives to those under 18, and the creation of a criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with the intent to use it in unlawful violence. To increase public confidence in policing, the Bill provides for a duty of candour for policing, and gives chief officers the right to appeal against the result of misconduct boards to police appeals tribunals.
Let me turn briefly to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which will enshrine the principles of the victims code in law, and provide greater oversight and transparency in respect of how victims are treated, with criminal justice inspectorates undertaking joint inspections on victims issues when directed to do so. As one who grappled with the old victims code under the Labour Government, when the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford was in power, I should point out that that was a pale imitation of what exists now. The code that was in place under Labour failed to give victims a right to review or the right to make a victim personal statement, it only applied to victims of particularly serious crime, and it failed to give any rights to close relatives.
Our victims code dramatically strengthens the rights of victims. It will be easier for victims of crime to make complaints against a public body by removing the need to go through an MP. It creates a duty for the police to ensure that requests for third-party personal records from complainants are proportionate and necessary. This measure will apply to victims only. There will be an independent public advocate for the victims of major incidents, who will help bereaved families and the injured in the immediate aftermath of a large-scale disaster.
Alex Chalk
I will give certainly way to the right hon. Lady in a moment, but not before paying tribute to her and, indeed, the Hillsborough families and others for campaigning for this measure.
Maria Eagle
I know that the Lord Chancellor has taken an interest in the public advocate proposals, but does he agree that they need to be strengthened in order to be effective, and that his proposals, as they currently stand, are nowhere near good enough to do the job that I, and others, hope they can do?
Alex Chalk
I have been very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the care and attention that she has given to this sensitive area over many months and years. We will continue to work with her so that this can be the best possible advocate. It is important to note, however, that whatever we provide will be a massive step forward. We do of course want to get it right, and I commit myself to working closely with the right hon. Lady in order to do so.
Finally, the Parole Board will be required to include members with a background in law enforcement in order to help parole panels make better decisions when assessing risk.
The legislation laid out in the Gracious Speech is an ambitious, long-term vision for our country. It builds on our record over the last 13 years to make our country safer than ever. It is a programme rooted in evidence; a programme that responds to the anger and distress that we all feel about crime, and that does so with measures that actually drive it down. We will ensure that the most dangerous offenders spend longer in prison to protect the British people from harm, and to protect women and girls in particular. We will equip the police with powers to fight the latest criminal trends that blight our communities, and we will ensure that law enforcement has the confidence of the public while pulling every lever to reduce offending, because that is what keeps the British people safe.
Sir Julian Lewis
I detected that my right hon. and learned Friend had reached the closing part of his peroration, so I wanted to ask him to address one concern that I have about the policing of demonstrations. As it happens, I think the police made the right call about 11 November, given the law as it stands. What concerns me is that three weeks earlier, on 21 October, a planned demonstration in Golders Green to pray for Israel and the Jewish people was called off after the police advised that it would be subject to intimidation or violence from people who were representing it as a threat against Muslims holding a demonstration for Palestine seven miles away. Does it not concern my right hon. and learned Friend that a peaceful demonstration should be called off in the face of intimidation, and is it not a matter of concern that the people who made the online threats that led the police to give that advice have not, as far as I have learned, been in any way questioned, sought or prosecuted?
Alex Chalk
As always, my right hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful point. On the basis of what he has said, that does seem troubling. I do not know all the details, of course, but the fundamental point is that anyone in our community, whether they are Jewish or otherwise, should be able to practise their faith without let or hindrance. I am grateful to him for raising that. If there are measures that need to be followed up to protect our vulnerable communities, they should be.
The Criminal Justice Bill focuses on the evidence—the evidence of what works and the evidence of what keeps the British people safe. Sometimes that will mean people being locked up for longer, and we make no apology for that. Sometimes it will mean ensuring that those who are capable of being redeemed are being redeemed. That is how we drive down reoffending, and that is how we protect the British people. I commend the Government’s programme to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As soon as the Scottish National party spokesperson has sat down, I will impose a time limit of six minutes on speeches. It may go down from that, but we will see how we get on.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Friends of mine will know that I run an occasional series on my social media about “Westminster weirdness”. Given what has happened in the past week, I really do not know where to start, but I congratulate the Secretary of State on still being here to deliver his speech. That, I suppose, represents some progress for him, if not for his colleagues.
I tend not to speak too much about justice in this place, because that is largely for the Scottish Parliament to determine, but some aspects of the legislation proposed in the King’s Speech bear some relation to what is happening in Scotland. I note in particular the draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. I hope that the Government will engage closely not just with the Scottish Government but with local authorities in Scotland, which may have an important role to play in the implementation of such a Bill. Given the way in which the existing licensing regime works for venues and premises in Scotland, they may have something to add that might work quite well in Scotland.
I am sure that Ministers will want to work closely with the Scottish Government on the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill. I note that certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill will apply in Scotland, and I look forward to getting some clarity from Ministers on precisely which provisions will apply there. I will mention some of these things later on.
It was shocking at the weekend to see the attacks on the police happening outside this very building—attacks that were encouraged in many respects by the rhetoric coming from this Government. In many cases, the signal that Ministers and their colleagues have been putting out has not been a dog whistle but a foghorn. To see the far right out on the streets, bursting through the police, claiming police helmets as if it were some kind of war victory and taking those trophies home, was appalling. The further fallout from this of the Islamophobic attacks on women at stations in the city was appalling and shocking. I hope that those who perpetrated all those attacks will be identified and brought to justice. Likewise, those who have been making antisemitic attacks against our Jewish communities need to feel the full force of the law. The Scottish Government recently brought in hate crime legislation in Scotland, and I am sure that it will be used wherever it can be to hold those who perpetrate such hate crimes to account.
Recorded crime in Scotland remains extremely low. The most recent crime statistics show that recorded crime is at one of its lowest levels since 1974. The overall number of crimes recorded for the year ending June 2023 was 4% lower than the pre-pandemic level in June 2019, according to the latest statistics. Remarkably, Police Scotland has a 100% homicide detection rate, meaning that every one of the tragic murders that have been committed since the inception of the single service has been solved. Further to that, a significant number of cold cases committed many decades ago, prior to the inception of Police Scotland, have been detected using modern technologies and brought to trial, including the murders of Brenda Page in 1978 and Renee MacRae in 1976. There is a lot still to be done to ensure that those who have perpetrated crimes are brought to justice, however, and no one can rest until the loved ones of those victims see the justice that those they have lost deserve.
We need to do a good deal more on violence against women and girls. The Scottish Government have led in this area in many respects. The Equally Safe strategy has worked well, but there is always more that we need to do. The recently published “Vision for Justice” delivery plan includes actions to address long-standing challenges in the system faced by victims of sexual offences, as well as the continued modernisation of the prison estate. We are setting out an ambitious programme of reforms that goes up to March 2026. The plan puts a fresh focus on early prevention to prevent and reduce crime and to make communities safer. It can never be just about locking people up; prevention is incredibly important too.
The Criminal Justice Bill that the Secretary of State mentioned talks about cracking down on things, but cracking down on things just means locking more people up. For young people in particular, that will change their life chances dramatically and have an impact on the rest of their life and their family’s lives. The work of the violence reduction unit in Scotland over many years has taken a preventive approach to violence in young people, and violent offending in young people has gone down significantly as a result. This work recognises that young people—particularly in this era, with the impact of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis—are really struggling with their lives and need intervention all the more.
Youth work can be powerful in changing young people’s life chances. I pay tribute in particular to PEEK—Possibilities for Each and Every Kid—and the Youth Community Support Agency in Pollokshields, which have done a huge amount of work over many years to tackle the issues facing young people in our communities.
However, we cannot be complacent. We need continual work and investment in these services. The violence reduction unit also wishes to highlight the work that has been going on around the promise for care-experienced young people in Scotland, who we know from the statistics are sadly more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. We need to continue to work with this group, and to learn from them and their experiences to ensure that their life chances are improved and that the promise is delivered upon.
Another piece of work that has been going on in Scotland, further to the hate crime legislation that came before, is Baroness Helena Kennedy’s work on the introduction of a misogyny Bill to create new offences relating to misogynistic conduct. Any woman in this place will tell you about the scourge of misogynistic conduct, whether it is the growing swell of hatred against women online, the challenges of social media and the attacks on women there, or the way in which young women are drawn into things that put them in harm’s way, perhaps through sexual experiences online or through the way in which these things are dealt with in our society. A lot more work needs to be done to tackle misogyny in our society.
A national system will be rolled out in Scotland to digitally transform how evidence is managed across the justice sector, which will benefit victims and witnesses and support the quicker resolution of cases. We are also aiming to expand the availability of mediation services in civil disputes, because it will save people time, stress and money if these things can be resolved at an earlier stage.
I want to touch briefly on drug policy, because there has been significant progress in Scotland in recent years. Yes, we have our challenges and we acknowledge those challenges, but we are putting significant efforts into tackling them. I welcome the mention of pill presses in the Criminal Justice Bill, because street Valium has been a particular scourge on the streets of Scotland. It is being sold at very cheap prices and with indeterminate strength. It has been implicated in many deaths, so we need to tackle it at source. Again, this is a public health issue. We are not tackling the people who are taking those drugs; we are tackling those who are forcing them on to the streets.
On the UK’s approach, I would continue to urge the UK Government to do something with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It is an entirely outdated piece of legislation that criminalises and harms people who have a health issue. It is disappointing that the King’s Speech did not see fit to tackle that, and that the UK Government have responded so poorly to the strong, evidence-based report that the Home Affairs Committee produced on drug policy in the UK. We need to learn from these things, not continue to be guided by outdated and harmful ideology.
In Scotland, we have invested £141 million in drug and alcohol services and made huge strides in the increase of residential rehabilitation facilities, which are incredibly important. We have opened the first national family drugs treatment service in the new mother and child recovery house in Dundee. We have also made a huge amount of progress, as was acknowledged in the Home Affairs Committee report, on medication-assisted treatment standards, which will help people to get that treatment straightaway when they need it.
We are increasing the uptake of residential rehabilitation placements and the availability of lifesaving naloxone. I encourage all Members to go for naloxone training, as I and my office team have done. I had staff from the Scottish Drugs Forum come into my office and deliver training to me and my staff, and the staff teams of colleagues, on how to administer lifesaving naloxone. It is a simple thing to do, and it can save a life. As we are all aware in our communities, it seems sensible to be able to do this. If we are taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it makes sense to do something of this kind with naloxone. The Scottish Government have very much been a leader in that.
We have implemented an enhanced drug treatment service, which will deliver heroin-assisted treatment to a small group of people. It has been incredibly well received and successful for those who have been through the programme. Those who completed it have seen huge benefits, and I look forward very much to the opening of the safer drug consumption facility in my constituency next year. It is not yet open, but I very much believe that it will do an awful lot to reduce the antisocial behaviour of people taking drugs on the streets, in bin sheds, and on closes, back lanes and waste ground, and to bring those people inside where they can take drugs under medical supervision. Not one person has died in any of these facilities where they have operated in 100 cities around the world, and I hope that its introduction will lead to a harm reduction approach in Scotland and help people to get on the right track to staying safe and improving their lives.
Amendment (h), which was tabled by me and my honourable colleagues, calls for an immediate ceasefire in the middle east. I struggle to cope with the scenes of horror that are on our television screens every night. The horror of 7 October shocked us all, as has the devastation since for the people of Gaza. Both of these things are incredibly difficult to process. How can people behave in this way towards their fellow human beings? I do not think I have ever received as many emails, even on Brexit, as I have received these past four weeks. Overnight, I had 500 emails from constituents who are desperately worried about this situation and are demanding a ceasefire now.
Both of these things are incredibly difficult to process. How can people behave in this way towards their fellow human beings? I do not think I have ever received as many emails, even on Brexit, as I have received these past four weeks. Overnight, I had 500 emails from constituents who are desperately worried about this situation and are demanding a ceasefire now.
I had to update the figures in my remarks, because the death toll has of course risen. At least 4,506 children in Gaza have been killed—that is one child every 10 minutes, and more than 100 children every single day. A further 1,500 children remain missing under the rubble of bombed-out buildings and are presumed dead. The number of children killed in a single month of conflict in Gaza is more than eight times the number of children killed in Ukraine during the entire first year of the current war with Russia.
Many of the children who have managed to survive so far are sick or at risk of falling ill due to the lack of clean food and water. Oxfam has reported five-hour queues at bakeries and a very real risk of starvation. Nowhere is safe from the airstrikes, not even medical facilities, which are protected under international law. Only one hospital in northern Gaza is still operational, with very minimal service. The Al-Ahli Hospital, where my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has worked, is struggling to keep going. She awaits news of whether her colleagues and the people she knows have survived and of the current circumstances.
Riham Jafari of ActionAid has commented on the concept of a humanitarian pause:
“What use is a four-hour pause each day to hand communities bread in the morning before they are bombed in the afternoon? What use is a brief cessation in hostilities when hospital wards lie in ruins and when roads used to deliver medical supplies and food are destroyed?”
ActionAid has also talked about the situation facing pregnant women giving birth under bombardment. Giving birth does not fit into a neat four-hour humanitarian pause. Women are giving birth and having caesareans without anaesthetic, and babies are being born into chaos and death—they cannot be guaranteed a ventilator to keep them alive.
Waseem, an Oxfam staff member in Gaza, has said:
“Prices have trebled. The market is almost empty. There is a major shortage of essential foods and essential items. No bread, no dairy products, no salt, no milk, no canned food, no blankets or mattresses. Access to basic services is very limited. No electricity, no water, no gas, no health system and no education. We feel trapped.”
Civilians, who have done nothing wrong, ask us, “How long can this go on?”
Vivian Silver, the 74-year-old Canadian-Israeli peace activist who founded Women Wage Peace, was confirmed murdered in the 7 October attack on kibbutz Be’eri. She was identified by her DNA. She had worked her whole life for peace. When the attack happened, she was having a discussion on the radio from her safe room before the phone cut out. She was challenged on her views on peace in the middle east and, even when an attack was happening and she was in her safe room, she said, “We can talk more about this if I survive.” We should listen to her bravery and commitment to peace this afternoon. Her sons, who have lost so much, are seeking a ceasefire, because they know that this cannot go on. We should commit to peace and understanding in her memory.
How does this end? All conflicts, at some point, end—there is an armistice, an agreement and papers are signed. The question for all of us in this place is how long this current phase of conflict continues. When does it end?
The UK is always keen to talk up its position as a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council, but what is that worth when we do not back the UN Secretary-General when he calls for a ceasefire? In what reasonable circumstances should António Guterres have to go to the Rafah crossing to plead for aid to get through? Why are we not standing behind the Secretary-General and the United Nations?
If we do not strive for peace, we condemn yet another generation in Palestine and Israel to a cycle of violence, to death and destruction beyond our imagination. We commit ourselves to a two-state solution, to justice and to peace. We will vote on the King’s Speech tonight, and we will vote on these amendments. It will not end the 70-year-old conflict, but it gives us a place to begin.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It was a pleasure to listen to the Lord Chancellor open the debate with the characteristic moderation and eloquence that he brings to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome the two new Under-Secretaries of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—my constituency neighbour—and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), to the Treasury Bench. They are both great assets to the Government team.
I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said in his speech. I will concentrate on justice-related issues, given the pressure of time. The Justice Committee has, in fact, already worked on some of these policy areas, and I am grateful to him and his ministerial colleagues for taking on board some of the issues we have raised. We may want to press them a little further as we see the details of legislation, but I welcome the moves they have made. I appreciate their courtesy throughout our dealings.
I will start with our recent report, “Public opinion and understanding of sentencing”, which is important in the context of the Sentencing Bill and some provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill. The report shows that there is a real problem with the lack of a coherent approach to sentencing policy in the UK, as well as an issue with public understanding of the objectives of sentencing. In particular, there is insufficient analysis of the potential impact of sentencing changes.
This is not unique to the last few years; it has been systemic for all the time I have been involved in politics, and probably for all the 30-odd years I spent in practice at the Bar, specialising in criminal work, before coming to this place. No Government takes particular blame, but systemically we have perhaps not done enough to adequately collect and efficiently and fully use data to drive evidence-based policy. I know the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues understand that, and I know the Department is making moves to improve it, which I welcome. These Bills are examples of where we can try to put some of that into practice. That is certainly what our report is looking to achieve.
Given the public’s view that public protection is the top priority—we came to that conclusion after a very detailed sentencing exercise, I might add—I do not think people object to stronger sentences for the most dangerous offences but, equally, we need to be alert to identify any potential unintended consequences. That means we have to level with the public. If we repeatedly enact measures that increase sentencing, with the mantra of being tough on crime, we have to be honest with the public by saying it will cost money. Keeping an adult male in prison costs £47,000 a year. If they are a danger to the public of if they committed the worst types of crime, that is money well spent, but the Lord Chancellor is quite right to look at alternatives, where that money could be better used, for those who are not a danger and who are, in many respects, inadequate and have been failed much earlier in their lives, leading to a chaotic situation.
Tougher sentencing is sometimes part of the mix, and rightly so, but smarter sentencing is usually what is important. I think the Sentencing Bill recognises that and gives us an opportunity to build on it. That is also important because of the capacity crisis we have identified in prisons through our study of the prison workforce, where we have real difficulties in recruitment and retention. That is also important, as we cannot have rehabilitation without sufficient and adequate staffing.
As Winston Churchill said, “There is, in truth, a golden treasure in the heart of almost every man.” Not everyone is redeemable, but very many are. Far more than people in politics sometimes think. It is a good thing if we can turn people’s lives around through the prison system, because that means less reoffending. That is why the presumption against shorter sentences is right. There are certain areas, which have been mentioned, where we must carefully look at the detail but, overall, the evidence is overwhelming that short sentences do more harm than good. Sentencing policy should be about evidence and preventing reoffending, not about soundbites and grabbing headlines. I know the Lord Chancellor has adopted that approach.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Those are the arguments that have been used for most of my lifetime: the idea that recidivism is caused not by punishment, or by retributive justice; that somehow this is less important than the fact that, as he said, the people who commit crimes have somehow been failed. For a long time this has been the prevailing view in criminal justice, yet it has brought no decline in recidivism—rather, the opposite.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before the hon. Gentleman comes back on that, I must point out that if those who are trying to catch my eye later intervene before they have spoken, they will be moved down the list.
Sir Robert Neill
A lifetime of holding a particular mindset that is not supported by evidence is not something I would boast about. I have followed the evidence, which shows that short sentences do harm more than good. The Government have got the balance right and, with respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that those who take a contrary view have. Prison does not always work. It works for the worst cases but not for everybody, and let us be honest about that. That is exactly what the Lord Chancellor is trying to do.
Finally on sentencing, I hope that when we get the Sentencing Bill we will be given a proper impact analysis on prison places and demand—I am sure that we will.
As for the Criminal Justice Bill, we all recognise that when people thumb their noses at the victims of crime, people expect them to be seeing and hearing the court pass judgment, but I welcome the tone adopted in the Bill, whereby ultimately the discretion must rest with the judge. It is fair to give the judge a further tool in the toolbox to use, but there will be cases—the Lord Chancellor and I have seen this—where people try to hijack the proceedings in order to grandstand or behave disruptively. The use of reasonable force is a well-established concept. We do not want people being dragged up, at the risk to prison officers, who do dedicated work and put their health and lives on the line. We have to get a balance on this matter. The Bill achieves that and I commend the Lord Chancellor for dealing with a sensitive topic in that way.
I also hope that we will see in the Victims and Prisoners Bill the opportunity to take forward some of our Committee’s suggestions on imprisonment for public protection sentences. We made a number of recommendations and the Lord Chancellor has taken forward some of them, but I believe there is scope for more. He knows my views on resentencing but I am also talking in particular about the way in which the life licence works. I am sure that there is an opportunity to improve that greatly, so that we do not have people being set up to fail from the start. There are good and sensible measures in this Bill, I welcome them and I hope the House will support it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called to speak in the King’s Speech debate on policing and criminal justice. As Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I am pleased that policing is getting the attention it rightly deserves, but I say to the Government that far more needs to be done quickly, particularly on the vetting and dismissal of police officers who should not be serving in our police forces, and on specialist units for investigating rape and serious sexual offences. It is disappointing that not all police forces have those in place.
Our Committee, along with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), has also called for a spiking offence. In recent weeks the Committee has been concerned about whether we have the correct laws in place to deal with some of the protests we have seen and this issue of hateful extremism. We hope that the Government might address that as well. I totally agree with the calls for a statutory definition of “child criminal exploitation”. The Committee has been calling for that for some time.
After today’s judgment on the Rwanda policy, may I again commend to the Government our report on small boats, published last year, which contains a range of policy options that the Government might want to look at again? We look forward to working with the Home Office and Ministers, and to scrutinising proposals and policies that are based on evidence and a fully-costed model.
I want specifically to address the Government’s draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, which is also known as Martyn’s law. The Government are now planning to conduct a consultation before tabling the Bill in Parliament, and before responding to the pre-legislative scrutiny that the Committee conducted in the summer. However, it is worth remembering that the Bill is a response to the terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena in 2017 and the recommendations of the inquiry, and it is designed to help to prevent such an appalling crime from happening again. I pay tribute to Figen Murray, the driving force behind this legislation, whose son Martyn Hett was tragically killed in that attack. I hope that Ministers will be able to confirm the exact timetable for their consultation and when they plan to table the Bill in Parliament.
Sadly, we have learnt from the King’s Speech that the Government’s priorities for this Session do not include delivering justice to victims of the infected blood scandal, the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. That is, of course, despite the Government’s accepting the moral case for compensation, despite repeatedly assuring us that they were working at pace, ready for the infected blood inquiry to report this month, and despite having received final recommendations seven months ago from Sir Brian Langstaff on compensation, not to mention Sir Robert Francis KC’s framework document, which was given to them 20 months ago.
The Government did not even pledge to extend interim payments to bereaved parents, children and siblings, as was proposed by Sir Brian Langstaff and recommended clearly in his report. I am sure that Members from across the House whose constituents include those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal will join me in voicing our deep disappointment that after 50 years, and five years of a public inquiry, with one victim dying on average every four days, this King’s Speech is yet another wasted opportunity. I therefore tabled amendment (q), with cross-party support, to try to put this matter right. Let us be clear: the Government have had all the information and time they could possibly need to set up a compensation scheme. It appears that the missing ingredient is political will, and that is not surprising. With the appointment this week of the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) as the latest Paymaster General, we have had nine holders of that post since the infected blood inquiry started in July 2017. Those receiving infected blood are not to blame for what happened to them and for the decades of delays in getting to where this issue now stands. They are certainly not responsible for the current state of public finances. I, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, will continue to push the Government every step of the way until they finally do what is right and deliver justice for this group.
Finally, I am really disappointed that the King’s Speech contained nothing to deal with the bread-and-butter issues that my constituents care about, one of which is the inability to access NHS dentistry. That affects many parts of the country and there is nothing in the King’s Speech to deal with it. Secondly, it contains nothing to deal with the coalition Government’s having changed planning permission requirements so that companies wanting to erect telegraph poles outside people’s houses to extend broadband connectivity can just do that. In Hull, three or four companies are doing that without local residents being able to have a say in it. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again, and I have tabled a private Member’s Bill on that basis.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I shall speak mainly about the various Bills that are designed to make our streets safer, almost all of which I fully support—with one detailed exception. I also want briefly to express regret about two absences from the Gracious Speech, the first of which is that of any changes to the social care system. That system has been creaking for years and the Government’s solution has been to give it some more money as a sticking plaster every year. We need much more radical change than that. We need a proper workforce plan, a strategy to keep older and more frail people in their homes for longer, both by redesigning housing and by using technology. Underlying it all, we need a much more stable funding system, where we do not rely on council tax—that is a big problem.
The other absence is amendment (q), referred to by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), which I have signed. As she says, that scandal has been going on for a long time. She talked about when the issue came under the purview of the Cabinet Office; that is so long ago, I was the Minister responsible, and it is hugely regrettable that, six years later, we have not made enough progress.
Let me turn to the criminal justice aspects of the King’s Speech. They are clearly necessary and central to restoring public confidence in the way we live in this country. Even in a relatively prosperous and peaceful constituency such as mine, people have significant worries about areas such as town centres feeling less safe. Legislation is required to address some of those issues, but obviously that is not the whole answer.
The welcome increase in police numbers that we have seen in recent years is equally important. I am delighted to congratulate Ministers and Kent’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, on the fact that we now have a record number of police in Kent. That is a significant step forward, but there is always more to be done, some of which is addressed in the King’s Speech.
The Sentencing Bill strikes the right balance. I am very happy to see the most dangerous criminals in prison for longer and I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, in welcoming the provisions on shorter sentencing. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) rose to ask a legitimate question about recidivism. Looking at the facts, short sentences of less than 12 months have a reoffending rate of 55%, so people who have received such sentences are more likely than not to reoffend, but the reoffending rate for those who have received a suspended sentence order with requirements is less than half that figure, at 24%, so the evidence is pretty stark that short sentences are not working to address the problem that my right hon. Friend legitimately raised.
I strongly support almost all the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill. I am particularly keen on introducing a statutory aggravating factor at sentencing for those involved in grooming gangs. I am very much in favour of increasing the multi-agency management requirements on offenders convicted of coercive or controlling behaviour, because other agencies need to get involved as well as the police. I am particularly keen on measures to tackle violence against women and girls; many Members on both sides of this House, as well as those outside, including police and crime commissioners, have done good work on that issue.
For various reasons, I am less convinced by the proposal to give more powers to the police to enter homes without a warrant. The police have perfectly good powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which gives them various powers to enter houses, and I am not convinced by Ministers’ arguments for needing more powers. Indeed, I was even less convinced when I read the explanatory notes for the Bill, which say:
“The Law Commission report, published in 2020, found that the process for applying for search warrants was extremely inefficient and delays caused by this increased opportunities for evidence to be lost.”
We have, therefore, an important safeguard in place—the need for a warrant—but we are “extremely inefficient” in using it. Instead of becoming efficient in using it, we will dispense with the safeguard altogether—I put it gently to colleagues on the Front Bench that that is completely disproportionate and frankly not the sort of thing a Conservative Government ought to be doing, so I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will think again about that part of the Bill.
In general, I am very supportive of the criminal justice and sentencing measures in the King’s Speech. I think they are both necessary and timely, and can build on the successes we have seen in recent years, under many Home Secretaries, in enabling the police to prevent and fight crime more effectively. The Bills are a significant part of a good set of measures in the King’s Speech. Despite my individual caveats on that one measure, I will be proud to support the Government in the Lobby at the end of the debate.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments (b) and (h). On Monday night, the Prime Minister made a speech setting out a vision for a foreign policy with morality and values at its heart. However, the absence of anything in the King’s Speech that even comes close to promoting the UK as a positive and outward looking nation shows that this Government embody neither morality nor values.
A foreign policy with morality at its heart would not leave over 2 million Palestinians trapped in a humanitarian nightmare without food, water, medicine or power. A foreign policy that puts values first would not be following the direction set by Washington and the United States in addressing this conflict. A foreign policy that is built on morality would not stand by as over 11,000 Palestinians are killed, more than 27,000 are wounded and 7,500 women and children have their lives taken from them, or as schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, refugee camps and homes are reduced to rubble. A foreign policy that is driven by values would not still be advocating the four-hour pauses that do nothing to alleviate the suffering of innocent men, women and children, and do nothing to end the violence that those living in the region have faced for decades. A foreign policy of morality and values would also not leave the Government unable to answer just how many Palestinian lives will be taken before they condemn the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza that continue to violate international law—acts of collective punishment that clearly fall within the definition of war crimes.
Instead, a foreign policy of morality and values would, front and centre, advocate a ceasefire that ends the bloodshed, allows desperately needed aid to reach those most in need and creates space following the safe return of hostages from meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace. With over 11,000 Palestinian civilians and 1,200 Israelis killed since 7 October, and tens of thousands more wounded, it is clear to me, the United Nations and every single aid agency operating on the ground in Gaza that a humanitarian pause does not do enough and does not go far enough. The innocent men, women and children of Gaza who are trapped in the never-ending nightmare of conflict, which they did not start and have no power to end, do not need a pause—they need it to stop. The only way we can achieve that is with a real and immediate ceasefire. I remain clear in my belief that that is the right thing to do and the right choice to make if we want to see both an end to the bloodshed and a lasting peace in the region, which no humanitarian pause will ever be able to achieve. That is why I stood down from the Opposition Front Bench.
I also advocate for a ceasefire rather than brief humanitarian pauses, because without a ceasefire—without a real break in the fighting—we will just see the unimaginable suffering, horror, death, destruction and devastation continue to unfold in Gaza. Without a ceasefire, the bloodshed that has already left thousands of innocent civilians dead and has wounded so many more—that has left children without parents, robbed parents of their children, and seen premature babies left to die outside their incubators—will tragically continue. Without a ceasefire, the desperately needed aid and assistance that Palestinians urgently need and cry out for—food, water, fuel and medicine—will not be able safely to enter Gaza. We will not be able to reach those who are most in need, and that will lead to the deaths of many hundreds and thousands more.
Without a ceasefire, the negotiations working towards a peaceful resolution and a real two-state solution, for which the region cannot wait any longer, will simply not have the space or the will to succeed. That is why I support the ceasefire amendments, and why I shall continue to advocate for a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, to enable desperately needed aid to reach those most in need, and to create space for meaningful negotiations.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
In a law and order context, there is a rich and sad irony in today’s amendments on a ceasefire: the UK Parliament is soon to vote on a ceasefire in a conflict over which the UK has no control, and a ceasefire that neither side in the conflict wants. Hamas openly say that they will fight on to kill as many Jews as possible—not Israelis, but Jews—and that they would do what they did on 7 October all over again if they could. They openly say that. Israel will destroy Hamas, and will be doing the world and, indeed, the Palestinian people a great service by doing so. A ceasefire would play into the hands of terrorists and terrorism. The Scottish nationalists, among others, have engineered an amendment to this debate to incommode and undermine the Labour leadership, but what they actually undermine is community cohesion and the Jewish community in this country.
If I may, I want to address the Jewish community in the United Kingdom. There is a great deal of fear in the Jewish community, who feel decidedly unsafe and abandoned, vulnerable and isolated, and who have effectively been banned from central London for several weekends now by the risible failure of police actions and the one-sided prejudicial reporting of the BBC and others. Those factors have an adverse effect on law and order as well as on diplomatic moves internationally. We hear of deep hatred for Israel from multiple quarters.
Why do we not see mass demonstrations and similar responses when hundreds of thousands of Muslims and others are killed in conflicts elsewhere? Some 600,000 civilians, including children, have been killed in the past year in Sudan and 300,000 in Yemen. There are countless dead in Ethiopia-Tigray and in Azerbaijan-Armenia. Then there are China’s hard-oppressed Uyghur Muslims, and the wonderful Kurds being attacked by Turkey, East Timor and so on. It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the screaming about Israel is based on the ancient hatred of antisemitism. Why else ignore larger losses of life? We see hate. We see dissent and we see division.
I wish to appeal today, in the limited time available, to a different emotion, which is hope. I say to the Jewish community in the UK and to those of any faith or of none who yearn for peace and reconciliation to be of good hope. There is much to be hopeful about. Why? One of the prime reasons for the timing of the ISIS-style pogrom of 7 October was the blooming flower of a relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia. It was apparently a few months away from fruition, and what a wonderful development that would have been. The Saudi position, as the keeper of the holy places, is such that perhaps a dozen Muslim majority countries would have soon followed suit and opened relations with Israel. However, all is not lost. The good news is that that will still happen, and the signs are that the Saudis will still pursue the project. For Jews and many others yearning for peace, it is something to look forward to. It would build on the historic Abraham accords of 2020, when Bahrain and the UAE bonded with Israel, and that arrangement has born rich fruit.
There are reasons to be hopeful even with Iran. Why there? The theocrats in Tehran are irredeemable; they support and fund terrorism in many areas and oppress and torture their own people, but, in due course, the evil designs of that clerical cabal will fail, just as the evil designs of so many others motivated by hatred have failed. The Iranian people are a wise and cultured people, and there is much to hope for there. Recently, the people of Iran have been encouraged by their regime to chant slogans against Israel, to trample on large Israeli flags, placed deliberately for that purpose at the exit of football stadiums, and to carry out other stunts, but the Persian football masses pointedly declined to do so. What bravery and what nobility—a good sign of hope for the future.
What hope can we look to here in the United Kingdom? I think a lot. We have seen gangs of proto-fascists, frankly, crowd around Marks & Spencer branches, for example, including one in Glasgow. I wonder why the SNP does not wish to mention that in debates.
Sir Michael Ellis
The reality of the matter is that Marks & Spencer, which was once a Jewish-owned company but since 1926 has been owned by thousands of shareholders, is now subject to antisemitic attacks, 130 years after its foundation. Mr Marks first came to the UK escaping, ironically, another pogrom, this one in the 1880s, but there is hope even there because I can tell the House that Marks & Spencer thrives like never before: its shares are up 66% this year.
There is even more hope elsewhere. We have a Prime Minister who has supported Israel; a Leader of the Opposition who has withstood the brickbats and those who wish to divide, and is defending the Jewish people from insult and prejudice; and a sovereign, a King, who is a global leader and who will be a source for peace. There is no better hope than that.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
We cannot discuss confidence in the criminal justice system and policing without tackling the long and balefully negative influence of the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, which, although it was more than 34 years ago, has hugely impacted how the police and public authorities are seen across Merseyside and beyond. The impact is widespread and intergenerational, and more needs to be done to tackle it.
I had hoped that we would see a Hillsborough law in the legislative programme, to learn the lessons of the tragedy in which 97 people were unlawfully killed by the gross negligence of the police responsible for keeping them safe. To date, none of the South Yorkshire police responsible for the disaster, or for the subsequent cover-up and campaign of vilification, has been held to account, and now none probably ever will be, while the families of the dead and survivors have endured decades of wrongly being blamed for what happened and feeling that they have to defend the reputations of their loved ones from the ongoing ignorant attacks spawned by South Yorkshire police’s deliberate campaign to shift the blame from themselves.
It is particularly difficult for families to feel frozen in time, forever being dragged back to their darkest days as they have to keep repeating to ignorant people what really happened: the findings of unlawful killing at the second inquests, and the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel—the truth of Hillsborough, in other words. Yet the police campaign, aided by some newspapers, was so powerful and has been so enduring that we still hear tragedy chanting at football matches, blaming Liverpool fans for what happened.
One of the biggest comforts that the families of those who died and survivors who still suffer to this day could have is the assurance that Parliament has taken steps to prevent such problems from occurring in the aftermath of such tragedies, yet we have not done so. That is why I have introduced my Public Advocate Bill, repeatedly blocked by the Government, since 2016. That is why I support the more general call for a Hillsborough law to try to prevent what happened after Hillsborough from ever again affecting victims and families who are caught up in public disasters through no fault of their own then find themselves treated with indifference or hostility by public authorities, and their feelings ignored.
There have been disasters since Hillsborough, and there will be more, although we must hope to keep them to a minimum. The Hillsborough law aims to rebalance the scales of justice towards families bereaved by public disasters and towards survivors. First, it would establish a public advocate, independent of Government and able to act at the behest of families affected after major incidents to give them a say, and to use the learning from the Hillsborough independent panel process on the huge power of transparency to stop things going wrong as they did after Hillsborough. Secondly, it would place a statutory duty of candour on public servants, not just the police, although I welcome the fact that the Government will legislate for a duty of candour on the police. That can only help to make things better, but by itself it will not be enough to prevent the recurrence of an event such as Hillsborough. Thirdly, the law would ensure proper participation of bereaved families at inquest through publicly funded legal representation, and ensure equality of arms by ending the limitless use of public authorities’ budgets to defend their reputations on those occasions, no matter what the circumstances. Fourthly, it will make Bishop James Jones’s charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, which has been voluntarily signed by some, legally binding on all public bodies.
The Government have recognised for years that there are things that need to be changed, but I am afraid they have been lamentably slow in doing anything about them. Bishop James Jones’s report, which the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked for when she was Prime Minister, was published in 2017. More than six years later there has been no response to it. I find that quite shocking. I have been pressing the Government to respond for all that time and there is no conceivable reason for them not to have done so—at least since May 2021, when the last of the criminal trials collapsed. It is now two and a half years since then and there is still no response. I cannot understand what has held them up. The fact that the response has not been published is an insult to Bishop James and the work he did, and it is trying the patience of families and survivors who have already had to wait too long. I keep hearing that there will be a response soon, and I really hope that is true, but I am not holding my breath.
The Victims and Prisoner Bill carried over from the previous Session does contain a proposal for a public advocate, which I have welcomed. However, the Lord Chancellor knows my view is that his proposal is not sufficient to make the public advocate useful in preventing things from going wrong in future in the aftermath of disasters. It will simply be a signposting service for those families who are caught up. A signposting service is all well and good, and it is welcome, but unfortunately it is not going far enough. There is a real opportunity to make sure that families caught up in future public disasters do not have to suffer the same experience as the Hillsborough families, but his public advocate has neither the independence nor the powers required to shift the dial in favour of families or to torpedo cover-ups, which is the whole point. Furthermore, it is to be directed solely by the Secretary of State, which will not give it proper independence.
When the Bill comes back for its remaining stages in this place, which I hope will be before Christmas, I will keep trying to make positive changes to improve it, because otherwise it will be an opportunity spurned. I hope that Government Ministers on the Front Bench will give thought to improving the current proposals because, if they are enacted as they stand, they simply will not be enough to make real use of the lessons to be learned from Hillsborough.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Let me start by saying that I have read the amendments on the Order Paper tonight, and if I could bring the hostages home and stop the fighting on the streets of Gaza, I would do it and I would do it now. But the truth is that I cannot; no one in this House can. I am a legislator in our domestic Parliament, so in this debate I want to speak out against the wickedness of antisemitism.
It is not acceptable that any community should be cowed or intimidated from displaying outward expressions of their faith through fear of violence. Let me be clear: whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other faith, we allow people to express their faith visibly without fear of attack. That is fundamental to this debate. It is not right for any British citizen to be held accountable for the actions of a Government other than their own. My Jewish friends and neighbours are British citizens.
Last Friday I talked to a young Jewish doctor in the NHS who said, “Charles, being Jewish in this country right now is very, very difficult.” Those are not the exact words she chose, but the words I think I should use in the Chamber. Worshippers leaving a synagogue in Maida Vale on Saturday were abused and suffered verbal threats. The synagogue is near where I grew up, near where I went to school; it is where many of my friends worshipped. This is not acceptable. A house in north London displaying a mezuzah was daubed in paint from top to bottom—not acceptable.
Without equivocation or qualification, I say this: I stand, with good and decent people of all faiths, by the Jewish community. And if any Jews face harm, I and those people will place ourselves in front of those Jews to defend them from that harm. That is a solemn commitment on my part. The Jewish community in this country is small—279,000 people—but it comprises my constituents, my family and my friends, and they are deserving of my support and the support of us all.
Let me get to the crux of the law and order parts of this debate. We have to deal with this as a Parliament, and future Parliaments will have to deal with it. Hate laws do not stop hate. We wish that they would, but they do not. Hate is one of the basest of human emotions. It is the consumption that consumes the soul in the way that cancer consumes our physical bodies. I am desperate to see peace—I really am; I want to see peace in so many parts of the world—but what history has taught us is that peace is reached when the cost of hate is so great, when too many people have been killed, when scythes are exhausted, when nobody can take it anymore. That is the moment that great men and women of courage and enlightenment stand up, from both sides of that division, and set their hatreds and enmities aside, embrace each other, and hold out a hand.
The world is a complicated, complex place. If there were simple solutions, we would have found them by now; they do not exist. But there is always hope. There is always hope on both sides of this House. We settle our arguments through debate, and we are friends on either side of the House. There is a big lesson in there for many.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be called early in the debate. I usually wait a lot longer—
Chris Stephens
“Get on with it,” says the Labour Front Bencher.
On justice, I hope that the Minister heard my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) speak about the violence reduction unit work being done in Scotland. I was a member of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission. There is a lot of work being done on this issue in Scotland. It is a public health issue and, yes, education and lifelong learning have a role in tackling it, as I hope the Minister will take on board.
On the King’s Speech itself, this has been an extraordinary five days. It started off with a lot of the hard right-wing rhetoric, and now we see that the Government have moved, or are trying to move, to a centrist position—it is quite extraordinary. I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), and I have heard others. I hope that he will condemn the far-right thuggery we saw at the weekend in London and elsewhere. Those were not counter-protesters—the phrase I have seen being used—but far-right thugs. Every single Member of this House should condemn those individuals, who wore a poppy on their jackets while showing a swastika tattoo at the same time. It was an absolute outrage. Those were despicable sights at the weekend.
Other measures were mentioned in the King’s Speech. After today’s Supreme Court judgment, it is obvious that there will be yet another immigration Bill—that has been an annual event in this place since I came here in 2015—to try to fix the broken asylum system in this country. I am concerned; at my surgery in Govan on Friday, I met a Palestinian constituent who has been denied asylum by the Home Office. He has not heard from his family in Gaza for 10 days, and has been denied refugee status in the United Kingdom. That tells me how broken the asylum system is, and I hope that Home Office representatives will meet me to discuss that particular case.
What was most surprising about the King’s Speech was that it contained very few measures to tackle the cost of living crisis—or, as I call it, the cost of greed crisis—that is taking place across these islands. It is interesting that in America, President Joe Biden has launched a food poverty strategy to eliminate food poverty by the year 2030, but this Government will not match that ambition here. I certainly intend to table a Bill on that issue, because we need a strategy to eliminate food poverty. Far too many of our citizens across these islands are going hungry; it is a disgrace that that is happening in an economy like ours. It is being left to the rest of us to develop a community shop network, selling food at affordable rates or at cost, to help people move away from food banks—from emergency need.
We need that sort of system, and we need the Government to take food poverty in this country extremely seriously because, as I have said, far too many people are in food poverty, including far too many children. It makes me weep when I hear some of the stories reported to my office of people who do not have the basic essentials. We need essentials guarantees in the universal credit system. It is incredible that we have this ridiculous situation in which the universal credit system, which is there as a so-called safety net, is no longer a safety net for many reasons. Universal credit and the social security system are also broken; there were opportunities in the King’s Speech for the Government to fix them, but sadly they did not.
I associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, about the lack of action on infected blood in the King’s Speech. It is no longer good enough for the Government to sneak out statements just before recesses or prorogations, talking about the lack of action that is taking place for far too many people who have been caught up in that scandal. We will continue to call that out; there need to be debates and regular statements in this Chamber, so that Members from all sides of the House can call the Government to account for the snail’s pace of action. Lastly, I will be voting in the name of humanity and supporting a ceasefire in the Lobby tonight.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate, on a theme that many of us, and certainly our constituents, care passionately about: reducing crime and restoring faith in our criminal justice system. I was very pleased to see the Victims and Prisoners Bill rolled over, as well as the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill and the Sentencing Bill, both of which were announced in the King’s Speech. I will focus my remarks on the Sentencing Bill.
I have not been shy about outlining the key catalyst for my journey into politics, but I hope the House will forgive me for raising it once more, because it is very relevant to today’s debate. For Members who do not know, when I was 13 years old my dad was killed by a single punch: one blow to the head and he was gone in seconds. He was 35 when it happened; it’s funny but at the time I remember not thinking much about his age—he was my dad, so obviously he was just an old man—but now that I have reached the other side of 30, it kind of makes it all the more real and all the more stark. With no warning on a cold February Friday night, he was gone, leaving behind me and my mum, and his own mother, my amazing Nannan Sue, for whom my dad was her only child. I do not want to talk about the perpetrator or go into detail about our specific case, but I want to outline the sheer devastation that this incident caused my family. The family are the indirect victims of crime; we may not have taken a physical blow, but the impacts of the psychological blow will be with us for life—a true life sentence.
Through a lengthy chain of events that followed, I had the privilege of being elected to this place, and I have made it my mission to raise awareness about the impact of single-punch assaults. In a few weeks’ time, One Punch UK, an incredible charity, will be launching its annual “Punched Out Cold” campaign to show in quite grisly but necessary detail the impacts that violence can have. It is to remind people that, yes, it is fine to go out over Christmas, have a few drinks and get a bit merry, but it is never the right time to raise their fists. I hope Members across the House will support that campaign.
Why do I talk about my family’s experience again today? One of the headlines in today’s debate is raising confidence in the criminal justice system, and through my work with One Punch UK, I know all too well that many families who are the victims of single-punch assaults do not feel that the criminal justice system is on their side. Victim support is patchy and varied, and sentencing is felt to be far too low. Some would even say that it is insultingly low. People have lost loved ones through these violent acts and have seen the perpetrator released within a year. I know that no sentence will ever feel enough to make up for the loss of a loved one and the loss of all those future memories of what might have been, but we must do more to restore confidence in sentencing.
There has been concern in the past about overly lenient sentences. Indeed, in 2014 the Sentencing Council was asked by the then Lord Chancellor to develop a guideline for one-punch manslaughter, and a consultation was subsequently launched in 2017. In the seven years prior to that, the average sentence for such offences was just three years and 10 months—frankly, a kick in the teeth for the families of victims who were already going through so much. New guidelines eventually came into force on 1 November 2018, but in my view, sadly they still do not go far enough.
For single-punch assaults, the lowest possible sentence in the guidelines is just 12 months—12 months where a life has been taken, and where the families of victims do go through a life sentence. That is for those with the lowest culpability, and the guidelines state this is for cases where an unlawful act is committed, but where there was
“no intention to cause any harm and no obvious risk of anything more than minor harm”,
but I think many across the House would agree with me that that in itself is deeply flawed, because when throwing a punch there is always an obvious risk of serious harm.
I and the many one-punch assault campaigners I work with believe that sentencing for such assaults should properly reflect that risk, so it is time for new thinking. That is why I would greatly welcome a discussion with the Justice Secretary—and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who I warmly welcome to his new role—about how the new Sentencing Bill could include a specific minimum sentence for one-punch manslaughter that fully reflects the severity of the crime and the real devastating impacts on the families affected. That would be a concrete and tangible way that the Government could restore and raise confidence in the criminal justice system for the families of past victims and, heaven forbid, of future victims of single-punch assaults.
I have a little bit of time left, so, more broadly, I join the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), in welcoming the pragmatic approach taken by the Lord Chancellor on sentencing, with the most serious offenders rightly spending more of their sentence behind bars for the sake of public protection, while also focusing on the very real need for rehabilitation for lower level offenders to, frankly, prevent petty criminals losing their own lives to a vicious cycle of reoffending and incarceration. We know that criminal justice and social justice go hand in hand, so I am very pleased that the Ministry of Justice is taking such a pragmatic approach, and I look forward to supporting the Lord Chancellor and the entire Justice team on this legislative agenda.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments (h) and (r). As I have stated publicly, the attack against innocent Israelis on 7 October was an egregious crime against humanity. The families of those killed continue to mourn the loss of their loved ones, and the families of those taken hostage pray for their safe return. It would be a grave injustice not to recognise the acts of terror committed by Hamas for what they are. In the same way, it would be a grave injustice if the world turned a blind eye while innocent Palestinians are being murdered by the hour.
More civilians have been killed in six weeks in Gaza than were killed in 20 months in the Russia-Ukraine war. More children have been killed in Gaza than the annual number of children killed across all conflict zones since 2019. More United Nations workers have been killed in Gaza than in any comparable period in the UN’s history, and more journalists have been killed in Gaza than in any conflict period since 1992. Hospitals have been bombed, refugee camps have been bombed and United Nations schools have been bombed. Ambulances, bombed; bakeries, bombed; mosques and churches, bombed; northern Gaza, bombed; Gaza City, bombed; Khan Yunis, bombed; the Rafah border, bombed. Almost every inch of the Gaza strip has been bombed.
More than 11,000 innocent civilians have been killed, and the hopes, dreams, and futures of nearly 5,000 Palestinian children have ended in mass graves. Some 2.3 million people are fleeing death and destruction, with babies dying in incubators, and pregnant women having caesareans without anaesthetic. There is no fuel to power hospitals, no food to feed the living, and when searching for clean water, it is as rare as when searching for gold. Make no mistake, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. That is why I urge Members to back an immediate ceasefire on all sides, and push for the release of hostages.
That call is backed by 120 members of the UN Security Council, 17 UN agencies, the UN Secretary-General, the World Health Organisation, the World Food Programme, Amnesty International, and more than 600 leading international non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid, Medical Aid for Palestinians, the UN Refugee Agency, the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is backed overwhelmingly by the British public, and now it is backed by President Macron of France. Almost every international aid agency in the world is saying that vital humanitarian aid cannot be delivered to people without a ceasefire. Those are the very agencies whose expertise we rely on in other conflicts and take their lead, so why not this time?
We need a political solution to an issue that leads to peace, not one that ends in a way so horrific that it emboldens more terror in the region. Injustice is the greatest barrier to peace, and we cannot expect peace unless we enable justice to be delivered. Nothing symbolises our British values better than the statue of Lady Justice towering over the Old Bailey. She is figuratively blinded because justice is unbiased, with the scales representing the impartiality of decisions, and the sword a symbol of power and justice. When Israel acts with impunity and attacks hospitals, UN schools and refugee camps, and the case for the Palestinians is vetoed by the US and UK at the International Criminal Court, the world asks whether our justice is really unbiased.
When we rightfully condemn extremist and genocidal statements by Hamas, but fail to utter a single word about the genocidal rhetoric being spouted by Netanyahu and his right-wing Government, the world asks whether our scales of justice are truly impartial. When we follow the path of justice and the rule of law in the face of Putin’s aggression, yet Israel continues to defy UN resolutions with empty words and no action, the world wonders where is the sword of justice. When we fail to provide equal application of justice, in the eyes of the world, it is
“one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 728.]
Those are not my words, but those uttered by the former Labour Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, in this very Chamber—words that sadly ring true 20 years on.
Our values push us to do better, which is why, despite all the risks to our personal positions, we must do what is right. While it may be a matter of convention to follow our
closest ally, the US, in the interest of foreign policy, it is a matter of conscience to step away from our closest ally in the interest of peace.
We know that eventually there will be a ceasefire in this current crisis—every war ends with a cessation of hostilities. The question is not if there will be a ceasefire, but when. For the people of Palestine, every minute, every hour and every day that we wait is another orphan, another grieving mother and another family wiped out. That is why, in standing to save the innocent lives of Palestinians and Israelis and in representing the people of Bradford West, I will be supporting the amendment that seeks an immediate ceasefire.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to the whole House that a great many Members wish to catch my eye this afternoon, so after the next speech I will have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. [Interruption.] There is no point in people complaining. You come to me and tell me which of these people you want not to speak. We are talking about fairness here. [Interruption.] It was a rhetorical question—I will stop digging.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
A number of Members have referenced the appalling practice of spiking, so I will begin by commending my constituents Mandy and Colin Mackie, who founded Spike Aware UK following the tragic death of their son, Greg, who had his drink spiked. I support their campaign to have a law criminalising spiking introduced in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
There was much to welcome in the Gracious Speech, particularly the strong focus on tackling crime and keeping communities safe from crime and antisocial behaviour. The proposed measures for ensuring tougher sentencing for the most serious offences and increasing the confidence of victims will, I am sure, receive strong support not just from Members on the Government Benches, but across the country.
The devolved nature of policing and justice in Scotland means that my constituents and everyone living in Scotland will not automatically get the benefit of those changes. That would require equivalent action from the Scottish Government, who have responsibility for policing, tackling crime and the justice system. The experience of my constituents and of communities across Scotland is that when it comes to these matters, SNP Ministers promise big but deliver small.
On police numbers, for example, the SNP Government came to power in 2007 on a commitment to recruit and maintain 1,000 extra police officers over and above the 16,234 full-time equivalent officers who were then in place. Sixteen years later, the number of police officers in Scotland is a little over 16,000—right back to where we started from. In the words of David Kennedy, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation:
“The state of affairs in Scotland for policing at the moment is pretty bleak.”
There are fewer cops on the street. When we ask around, people no longer see the police on the streets. From my own contact with constituents, I know just how much they value and respect the work of officers working in their communities, but time and again concerns have been raised with me that there is simply not an adequate number of police officers working within local communities to provide them with the reassurance they need and deserve.
I have been given that clear message most recently by local people in Peebles and Gretna in my constituency, where concerns have been put to me over the increased disorder and other types of antisocial behaviour. Continuing reports from those communities and others of antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and vandalism are worrying, and they are clearly making life miserable for the law-abiding majority. There is no doubt that the Scottish Government have not been providing Police Scotland with the resources it needs to properly respond to crime or to be as visible as local people expect.
The truth is that the SNP knows that is the case. Speaking in the Scottish Parliament just a month ago, Emma Harper, the SNP MSP for South Scotland, said:
“I understand that V division in Dumfries and Galloway is struggling to meet the demands of its large rural region with the current number of officers… What specific action is being taken”—
by the Scottish Government—
“to recruit police officers to rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway as a priority?”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 25 October 2023; c. 22.]
Ms Harper is entirely right to be asking why the Scottish Government have not taken the urgent action needed to recruit and maintain police officers in communities such as the one I represent.
My constituency is covered by three police divisions. In Dumfries and Galloway, there was a total resource complement of 392 officers in 2019. Three years on, that has dropped to just 354. In Lanarkshire, three years ago there was a total complement of 1,404; it is now 1,366. In Lothian and Borders, in 2019 there was a local complement of 946 officers, which has now fallen to 907. It is the same picture right across Scotland.
I will therefore use this occasion to urge the Scottish Government to take a page from the King’s Speech and give a proper focus to keeping communities safe from crime and antisocial behaviour, ensure tougher sentencing for the most serious offenders, rebalance the justice system to put the rights of victims over those of criminals, and restore the proud tradition of community policing, which has served constituencies such as mine so well over the years, by giving our police the resources and increased manpower they need to do their job and keep local people safe.
Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you and all the staff of the House for the very warm welcome that I have received—and for all their help when I have so obviously become lost while moving around the building?
I am glad that I chose a quiet political day on which to give my maiden speech. It is a pleasure to speak in this King’s Speech debate, and in a debate focused on improving our justice system. There is much that we can do not just to talk about being tough on crime, but to understand its root causes and tackle the underlying issues, not least the poverty of opportunity that leads so many into criminal activity.
Before I qualified as a teacher, I spent several years working with young people involved in gangs and offending. They were not bad people; they were not born bad. They were people often without hope that their lives could be anything more than what they currently experienced. When you lose hope, when your aspirations are limited by your experience, when you are unemployed or excluded from school, is it any wonder that a gang starts to seem like a reasonable option?
I am glad that the police in England are learning from wonderful projects in Scotland, as mentioned by my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), such as the violence reduction unit, which I did a lot of work with. The key to such preventative projects is to continue investing, not to cut and run when crime stats go down. Prevention absolutely works, but in order for it to work we have to keep on preventing.
It is an absolute honour to stand here as the Member of Parliament for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather), who gave his maiden speech a few weeks ago, that he set the bar very high and somehow also managed to make me feel very old for having been born before the 1997 general election. I should say that I am not too old, as I was still aged in single digits when Tony Blair became Prime Minister—something I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern), who gave an outstanding maiden speech yesterday. I also welcome to the Labour Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), who is similarly new to this place. It is getting to the point where we will have a maiden speech every week—perhaps a general election will not be necessary after all for Labour to form the next Government.
It is customary in a maiden speech to praise one’s predecessor, and I hope that the House will permit me to praise my predecessors. The cause of the by-election will not have escaped many hon. Members, but I met countless people across my constituency who praised Margaret Ferrier’s attention on matters of casework and local issues. Credit is due to her for that. Towards the end of her time in this place, she also started to give the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is not in his place, for a change—a run for his money on participation in debates. I hope that I can match at least some of her parliamentary energy. I also pay tribute to my predecessors Ged Killen, Tom Greatrex and Lord McAvoy for their dedication to the constituency over many years.
Rutherglen and Hamilton West is steeped in industrial and political history. Rutherglen itself is one of the oldest royal burghs in the land, granted its royal charter by King David in 1126. That means that in 2026 Rutherglen will celebrate its 900th anniversary, which the community is looking forward to marking. Blantyre was the home of David Livingstone, and the museum that stands where he grew up is not just a thriving monument to his life, but a reflection on his complex past as both an abolitionist and a fervent supporter of colonialism. Across the constituency there is a legacy of coalmining, iron and steelmaking, such as the Clydebridge steelworks in Cambuslang, which stands as a sad reminder of the industrial decline of communities such as mine across the west of Scotland.
As a Labour MP, the roots of our founder Keir Hardie are in Lanarkshire. It was in Rutherglen, then called Mid Lanarkshire, in 1888—just a short century before I was born—that he first stood for election. For SNP Members, the area also saw one of their most famous by-elections in 1967: the election of Winnie Ewing, whom we sadly lost just a few months ago. The seat also holds electoral history for another reason, which I thank the House of Commons Library for double checking: until my by-election result, the only time that Labour took a seat in a Scottish by-election was in 1964, in Rutherglen. Then, the seat was taken from the Tories. This time around, it was the deposit that was taken from the Tories, and not returned. [Laughter.] I thank everyone who supported the by-election and our volunteers. I am proud to say that, unlike some other parties in this place, our campaign did not rely on zero-hour-contract leafleteers to deliver our election material.
Enough of history. Rutherglen and Hamilton West’s past is not all that it should be proud of. It is a patchwork of vibrant communities, from Burnhill and Rutherglen in the west on the border with Glasgow, to Fernhill and Whitlawburn in the south, stretching through Burnside, Cambuslang, Newton, Halfway, Blantyre and the western edges of Hamilton, which sadly will leave the constituency following the boundary changes. Some Members may know of my somewhat irrational running challenge during lockdown, when I set out to run every single street in Glasgow, achieving it some two years and 2,300 km later. I have set myself the challenge now of running every street in my constituency—something I encourage all hon. Members to do in their own path, though that suggestion was dismissed in horror by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) when I suggested we take it on together.
On my way around the streets in a by-election that took six months, I met so many incredible people doing so much in their community. It is a constituency with a fantastic sense of pride, from the various gardening groups that brighten up the streets to the charities and organisations such as Leap, Healthy n Happy, the Fernhill bingo, the bowling clubs or even Mo’s famous shop in Blantyre, which operates more as a community centre than a shop. They do so much to bring the community together and reduce the social isolation that so many people feel, especially after the pandemic.
It is a community full of hard-working, decent people who are not shy of telling anyone what they think, as any journalist who camped out on the main streets of my constituency will remember during the recall petition and the by-election. They want the absolute best for their community and their family. But they are rightly angry, politically scunnered at being let down time and again by Governments distracted and divided at the very moment they need them most. Devolution promised us the chance to make decisions unique to Scotland in Scotland, but so often of late it has become a place not of high ideals of public policy but of manufactured grievance and division. Donald Dewar spoke of the Scottish Parliament as a means to revitalise
“our place in this our United Kingdom”.
It feels to most Scots today that neither the SNP nor the Conservatives are revitalising anything. Our much too slow march towards social justice continues to elude far too many.
My first contribution in this House was to ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make work capability reflect the complexity of people with neurological conditions. It is a cause close to my heart, as is disability more generally. Far too many people’s potential is still limited by factors outwith their control. Systems that we put in place so often hold people back. Complexity in the benefits system forces people into poverty and destitution. A fundamental lack of compassion and understanding stalls people’s ambitions right at the moment it should be unlocking them. Another Lanarkshire Labour MP and a political hero of mine, John Smith, put it well in 1993:
“a choice between Labour’s opportunity society which invests, which educates and which cares, and the sad reality of neglect, division, and rising crime that is Tory Britain today; a choice between Labour’s commitment to democratic renewal, rights, and citizenship, and John Major’s centralised, secretive and shabby Government”.
Fast forward 30 years and he could be talking about where we are today: a Government who are incapable of delivering the change my constituents need.
It has become fashionable of late—perhaps it always was fashionable—to denigrate politics. It is not hard to see why people see our deliberations here as foreign to their daily lives. But I have also seen, in the few short weeks I have been here, MPs from across this House championing causes that may only affect a few people, but affect them greatly. As I used to tell my pupils when I was encouraging them to vote, politics changes our lives for better or ill and it is our responsibility to engage with it meaningfully. Having been elected, I was amazed to discover my former pupils took to TikTok to speak positively about me, which I have to say, working with teenagers, is not necessarily guaranteed. But I would also say on reflection, Mr Speaker, that since I arrived in this place I am discovering that the behaviour I sometimes used to complain about in the classroom might have been more impressive than I thought. [Laughter.]
I have no doubt that over the coming weeks and months I will wrestle with complicated issues and seek to further my understanding of topics I will openly admit I need to know a lot more about. None of us has all the answers—although I suspect that may come as a surprise to some hon. Members—but complexity should not be something we shy away from. Nuance, which seems so lacking in our political discourse today, no doubt in part because of the role of social media, is an essential part of coming up with the common-sense solutions that work for people. Being able to disagree without being disagreeable should not only be possible, but something we strive for.
With a general election on the horizon, who knows how long I might be sitting on these Benches—at least on this side of the House. The “opportunity to serve,” as John Smith put it, is about putting our values into practice. I do not want to be here just opposing the Tories, but on the other side replacing them.
For every day I am here, I hope I can serve the people of my constituency well. I hope I have the confidence to stand up for those who are too often voiceless in our society, and at least try to change some of what holds back so many people in my community. This place is full of people with a wonderful calling, and I hope I can do the people who sent me here proud in the time that I have.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
What a pleasure to follow the thoughtful eloquence of the new hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks). One of his predecessors, Tom Greatrex, shadowed me when I was the energy Minister and became a great friend. I hope that he, too, might become a good friend over time.
When I was a boy, still younger than the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather), I attended my first Conservative party conference in 1975. Margaret Thatcher, the new Conservative leader, declared then that
“The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty…then so will the governed, and…nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.”
For a civilised society is an ordered society, and because it is the most vulnerable—the old, the frail and the less well-off—who live on the frontline of disorder, they must be protected from it. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West spoke about the hopelessness that can lead to when people feel they are exactly that: on the frontline of crime. For that reason, a prerequisite of social solidarity is a civil order where law is enforced, justice prevails for all and the guilty are punished. We in this place must stand in defence of the gentle.
Yet too often in my lifetime, those who shape criminal justice have been impervious to the harm their doctrines do. Detached from the concerns of hard-working people, those with power are too often influenced by guilt-ridden, bourgeois liberals. Too many members of this opinion-forming elite have lost any sense of proportion about what matters and what does not. They are unable to gauge the significance of trivialities which waste time and resources; unable to tell the difference between the petty and the pertinent. Many people often believe, rightly, that the criminal justice system is more interested in hurt feelings than in the hurt that crime causes. They cannot understand why elements in the police appear to care more about silly social media than they do about burglaries and theft. It is preposterous that half the calls passed on to frontline police in recent years have been about social media.
Figures released in June revealed that the proportion of crimes resulting in a charge or summons was just 5.7%—a slight increase on last year’s figures, by the way—which means that 95% of crimes in England and Wales go unpunished, and that is leaving aside those that are not even reported. Meanwhile, in the five years to 2023, an incredible 120,000 people were recorded for “non-crime hate incidents”. Causing offence may be rude, but is it really worthy of police time? The liberal elite who offer a multitude of platitudes about equality are none the less content to see a two-tier justice system in which cultural relativism determines what is investigated and what is not. The law must be applied equally to all, whether they are eco-fanatics or Islamic extremists. For such characters, in the absence of a sense of proportion, anything can be legitimised in the cause of self-righteous purity, and that includes, when they glue themselves to roads, stopping ambulances taking the sick to hospital.
We must end the culture of excusing and rewarding deviant and wicked behaviour. I recall from when I studied criminology at university in the 1980s a seminal book, “Rehabilitation and deviance”, which showed that a rehabilitative ideal had become so institutionalised that the criminal justice system had become disconnected from the core concept of justice. Crime is not an illness to be treated. It is a malevolent option chosen by those who carelessly harm and damage people, largely out of greed or spite or malice, yet too many heinous and hardened criminals receive risibly lenient sentences.
We should not be letting people out of prison early, nor should we be suspending custodial sentences for persistent prolific offenders. That is not what the public expect, it is not what our constituents want, and it is not fair because it is not just. Crime must be punished, and punishment matters because the public want to see law-abiding, decent, patriotic people protected from the minority who seek to do them harm. Is that too much to ask? No authentic Conservative should vote for early release, and no authentic Conservative should vote for the end of custodial sentences. If any do, they must answer to their constituents.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Let me begin by making three points. First, I must congratulate the new hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) on a sparkling maiden speech. It is worrying for an old chap like me to see such talent in one so young—but I have every confidence that we will see great things from a colleague in the years to come.
Secondly, I strongly endorse the remarks made by my good friend the right hon. Member for—let me get this right—Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). What he said about the police reflected my own earlier intervention. It is true, and it is as true of the highlands of Scotland as it is of the south of Scotland. It is too bad that we are losing so many cops in the way we are.
Thirdly, I want to put on record my pride in amendment (o), which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. It will not be taken today, but I am proud to have been part of it. The amendment makes three fundamental points. We heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is no longer in the Chamber, some figures showing how many innocent people are being killed. It is absolutely abhorrent and appalling. My party and, I believe, many others believe that a two-state solution is fundamental to the future of that part of the world: it is the foundation, the rock, on which we can build peace in the longer term.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I have been to Gaza. It was a hell on earth before this latest bombardment and it has been absolutely flattened over the last few weeks. The hon. Member will know that one of the lessons from our peace process was that the only way to bring about a political settlement is to stop the killing first. When 1,400 Israelis and over 11,000 Palestinians lie dead, surely now is the time to stop the killing and call for an immediate ceasefire.
Jamie Stone
That is precisely why the second main point in my party’s amendment is a call for a bipartisan ceasefire right now. I also want to emphasise that the future of Gaza must not be about Hamas. We have to be very clear about that.
Leaving those introductory remarks aside, I was surprised that the King’s Speech did not refer to global warming or climate change. As some right hon. and hon. Members know, the extreme far north of Scotland has seen some very severe weather. Wick harbour was damaged in the recent storms, and if that is not dealt with speedily it will undermine or threaten the future of the harbour. Offshore wind developments such as the Beatrice wind farm depend on Wick harbour, as does the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. In that same weather, the protective wall for the railway line leading from Inverness to Wick and Thurso in the far north fell away, and for a period of time we had no trains whatsoever. That prompts the question of whether Network Rail was inspecting the sea defences in the way that it should have been. I await answers on that.
This weather is real; it is happening. When I was younger, we did not have weather like this. We now have flooding, landslips and all sorts of damage. I have spoken many times in this place about pregnant mothers having to travel 200 miles back and forth to give birth in Inverness. Now that the road and rail transport links could be dodgy, it makes the ludicrous decision to downgrade the maternity services based in Caithness even more dangerous to pregnant mothers. I am glad that nothing bad has happened, but we have had a near miss with one of two twins being born in Golspie and the other in Inverness. It is just too bad, and I hope and pray that one day this issue will be revisited.
Besides the weather, it is hugely important that everything that the Government do—be it the Scottish Government or the national Government—has to be about addressing and preparing for climate change. I hope that much work will be done on this, and that much will be said in the future, but we have to get it going now before there is more damage and before my constituency’s infrastructure is further undermined. It is very much in the best interests of my constituents that this work be carried out as soon as possible. I shall conclude my remarks by again congratulating our young colleague, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, on an excellent speech and I look forward to hearing his contributions in the years to come.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to join today’s debate. I would like to remind my constituents that this debate is about the policing and criminal justice elements of the King’s Speech, followed by a vote on a simple vote of thanks for that King’s Speech. That King’s Speech laid out our King’s Government’s legislative programme, which in this context is about laws to reduce serious violence and violence against women and girls, and about raising confidence in policing and criminal justice.
I wholly support my constituency neighbour, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), and his commitments to toughen sentences for the worst crimes, such as rape, while using community sentences more creatively for much smaller crimes. I hope that he will continue to listen to my belief that defining spiking, updating the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and using new language to have a strong nudging impact on young people will form a crucial part of protecting our constituents better. It was particularly good to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) saying similar things earlier, not least on behalf and in support of Mandy and Colin Mackie’s Spike Aware UK cause, which they established on behalf of their son Greg. I hope my right hon. Friend’s constituents will join Dawn Dines and her Stamp Out Spiking cause. With many supporters on both sides, the Lord Chancellor would be working with the grain of feeling in this House, and I hope the new Home Secretary will work closely with him.
I now turn to the amendments to the Humble Address. My Muslim constituents make an enormous contribution to communities across Gloucester, and they make a huge contribution to the multicultural diversity for which our city is such a success, not least at Widden Primary School, which comprises more than 50 different nationalities. I am very conscious that many of my Muslim constituents feel that today’s debate is about Israel, Palestine and Gaza, and perhaps do not know that this is effectively a vote of confidence on the Government’s legislative agenda and the specific policing and justice issues covered in today’s debate.
The Government’s approach to Israel, Palestine and Gaza has been laid out several times, not least in two statements in the last week. Frankly, the SNP tabled its amendment to try to embarrass and divide the Labour party. And Labour’s amendment, which summarises the Government’s position well, was tabled to give any embarrassed Labour Members something to vote for, in the absence of calling for a ceasefire—something over which none of us has any control.
I have been to Gaza twice, and I saw the horrors of Operation Cast Lead in 2010. What is happening today is many times worse. It is a humanitarian disaster, but neither side—neither Hamas nor Israel—is calling for a ceasefire. There are still large numbers of hostages and British citizens in Gaza who need to be released, and who need to get out.
It is not remotely my task to try to defend what Israel has done over many years in the occupied territories, but today is not the moment to call for a ceasefire when neither side has any intention to observe one and when Hamas have made it clear that they will continue with 7 October-like attacks and massacres for as long as possible. I will therefore not be supporting the SNP and Labour amendments. I will abstain on them and strongly support the Humble Address in response to the King’s Speech. Our legislative programme, particularly on policing and criminal justice, is one that we should all strongly support.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
In the time between the King’s Speech last Tuesday and today’s debate, we have had not only a former Prime Minister parachuted into a new Cabinet job, but yet another Housing Minister. That is 15 Housing Ministers in the last 10 years, four more than the number of Chelsea managers over the same period. It is simply not possible to build the houses we need with that level of chop and change, and when the average life expectancy of a Housing Minister is less than nine months. What can our new Housing Minister look forward to in the next parliamentary Session? We have finally had sight of the Renters (Reform) Bill, but whether it means we will see an end to section 21 no-fault evictions is anybody’s guess, as that depends on reforming the courts.
After 13 years of Tory governance, we heard a King’s Speech that ignored the real problems that many of my constituents face every day. The problem I hear about more than any other in my weekly advice surgery is the chronic lack of social housing. I see numbers of constituents evicted and placed in temporary accommodation outside London, hundreds of miles from their home. Merton may have the lowest number of families in temporary accommodation, standing at between 400 and 500 families, but that is 400% more than the norm. It is small in comparison with the neighbouring boroughs of Croydon, which has 4,000 families in temporary accommodation, and Wandsworth, which has more than 3,500. Councils across the country are threatened with bankruptcy because they simply cannot afford the temporary accommodation bill.
The quality of temporary accommodation is almost universally poor and, shockingly, there is not even a requirement that families with children under two should have access to a cot. That is important because, after reading the data from the national child mortality database, we know that 34 homeless children died between 2019 and 2021 as a result of the temporary accommodation they were housed in—most of them were under one. The most likely cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome because of a lack of safe sleeping provision, such as cots. In the fifth largest economy in the world, children are dying due to a lack of access to a cot. Surely there was room in the King’s Speech for a commitment to ending that shameful statistic. The all-party group on households in temporary accommodation will be leading a campaign in the coming Session to provide a cot to every family with a child under two living in temporary accommodation.
Whether or not the Government provide desperate families with a cot, we will still need the plans and the policies to build more houses. That is why I was delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition raise in his conference speech the issue that I and many others have worked on in the past few years with Professor Paul Cheshire of the London School of Economics: building on the grey belt. Within London’s green belt alone there are enough non-green sites surrounding train stations for more than 1 million new homes. My frustration here is not about parks, hills or areas of environmental protection, but the scrappy plots of land in towns and cities, surrounding railway stations, that no one in their right mind would see as attractive. I am talking about the car wash in Tottenham Hale, the scrubland in Ealing, the waste plant in Hillingdon and the concrete airfield in Wisley—sites that no one in their right mind would recognise as green belt if it were not for their designation. I issue a plea to the Government: build on the grey belt to give my constituents the homes they deserve and give children a cot, because they desperately need one.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), against whom I had the privilege of standing in 2015, when I was resoundingly defeated. That shows the quality of her work and the way in which she goes about things in this place, and I pay tribute to her.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the King’s Speech, because I genuinely believe that crime and sentencing is one of this Government’s key successes in the past 13 years. This Government have delivered on reducing crime and making sure that we back our police on the streets of our country. Crime is down by 50%, from 9.5 million recorded cases in 2010 to 4.3 million today. That is a real success story, and I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s approach to offering rehabilitation to the offenders who would genuinely benefit from it, while making sure that we have tougher sentences for those who deserve to be behind bars for longer. We have more police on our streets now, with 584 in Hampshire alone, which means more crimes being solved in my constituency.
Before I talk about the impact on Eastleigh, let me say gently that this afternoon we have had the same old Labour party, with Labour Members constantly carping about what we have not done but offering no alternative vision for this country. Members opposite can criticise me, but, when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Home Office, the shadow Home Secretary would constantly stand up to say that we had not gone far enough but would never say what she would do. The only thing that Opposition Members have done is vote consistently against this Government’s plans for tougher sentences, more police and sorting out our immigration system. The British public will see that when Opposition Members have to put themselves up at the ballot box in a year’s time and they will be found wanting.
I want to talk about this King’s Speech and what the Government’s record on crime and sentencing has done for my constituents. As well as the focus on rehabilitation and tougher sentences, we have, through the work of this Government and our excellent Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, recruited 582 more police. She has plans for more because, through devolution, the Government have given her the ability to channel funds into recruiting even more police. That has been enabled by a clear commitment by this Government and Prime Minister—and the last two Prime Ministers, actually—to ensure we have more police on the streets than we had when we took over in 2010.
After a three-year campaign, I am delighted that Donna Jones has listened to me and secured a new police station in Eastleigh town centre to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime—with a focus on local crime, which is blighting many of our town centres—that is fully accessible to my constituents, with a front desk, and CID and investigatory facilities in the building. That shows this Government’s action to give people and PCCs the accountability and services they want, and giving PCCs that power delivers for the people we represent.
Although there are a lot of good things in the King’s Speech and there is much to celebrate, I want to tackle the Minister on an issue that has been a consistent driver for many colleagues in Hampshire and for me in Eastleigh: a fairer funding formula for Hampshire police. Many hon. Members think Hampshire is a leafy county, as it is in many parts, but Eastleigh town centre is not leafy; it is a working-class, ex-railway town that has specific issues with crime. Southampton and Portsmouth, two ex-industrial cities, also suffer with specific issues of crime.
We simply do not get funded enough to deliver on the number of police we need in certain localities, such as Southampton and Eastleigh. We have had promises from various policing Ministers that they would look into this, but they have not done so. When the responsibilities are handed out to the new Ministers in the Department, I ask the Minister responsible for policing to look at that again and meet me to discuss how we increase that funding.
I fundamentally believe that this is a good King’s Speech, and that the Government have a proud record to defend on tackling crime for our constituents. As I said earlier—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), can shout at me, but I say to him again: the people of this country have seen a Government who have tackled and reduced crime and delivered more police on the streets, while the Labour party has done what it always does, which is to offer no alternative plan and to vote against the strong actions we have taken. It is the same old Labour party—that is what it always does.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. If we needed further proof that this Government are out of ideas and time—I was not going to mention the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes)—the King’s Speech provides that evidence, because it takes no action on the issues my constituents face on a daily basis. It does not even come close. It does nothing to deal with the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis or the climate crisis.
Let me start with the cost of living crisis, if only to remind those on the Government Benches who seem to have forgotten the impact it is having on millions across the country. The cost of a loaf of bread is 20% higher than it was this time last year. How are families able to purchase basic essentials at a time of rising prices? Inflation may be falling, but that does not mean that prices are falling.
How are families to afford housing when there is a chasm between housing allowance and the lowest rents, and when mortgage rates are soaring? How are families meant to save for the future amid the longest squeeze on wages for generations? Real average weekly earnings have increased by £5 since 2010, in stark contrast to the 14% increase experienced between 2000 and 2010 under a Labour Government.
The Government simply do not see the housing crisis as a priority. We are now on our 16th Housing Minister in 13 years. Promised in 2019, the Renters (Reform) Bill is subject again to indefinite delay because of the need for legal reforms, but every week I receive emails from constituents who have been given a section 21 notice. They tell me about the exhausting experience of being evicted from the place they call home and having to live in a state of limbo, to pack up belongings and to leave support networks and employment at immense personal, mental and financial cost. There is nothing in the King’s Speech to protect renters, just further delay and inaction. The Government promised to end rough sleeping by 2024, but—again—look at their record: rough sleeping has risen by 74% since 2010.
On the climate crisis, the Government have taken this opportunity to legislate for annual oil and gas licensing rounds, deepening our dependence on dirty, expensive, volatile fossil fuels that will not only torch the climate commitments they have made, but undermine energy security. This will not bring down energy bills at home—not my words, but the words of the current Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Energy bills are double what they were two years ago.
By comparison, Labour would make the UK a clean energy superpower, go much faster on renewables and cut bills for struggling families. In his conference speech, the Prime Minister promised change. He did so because everywhere he looked there was a record of failure. The country knows that it is not the Conservative party that will deliver change. It is only a Labour Government who can lead us to an era of national renewal.
I want to use my final minutes to express my disappointment that my own Care Supporters Bill, which I was putting through Parliament, was ignored during the King’s Speech. It included the important principle that the care of a loved one is not an optional extra when a person is in a hospital or a care home. I ask Ministers once again to consider passing this legislation in the little time that they have left.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the King’s Speech. Much of the work on crime and policing, I of course welcome: tougher sentencing for the most serious criminals; action on grooming gangs; and action on criminal gangs facilitating illegal migration. It is incredibly important, too, that we think about lower-level crime, such as shop theft, that is blighting many of our communities. In Ipswich town, which I represent, we have seen an increase in shop theft. It is almost at the point where it is outstripping pre-covid levels. Data is often not collected on a number of crimes, so we must have a deterrent in place. We have reached a stage where some businesses in Ipswich town centre are locking their doors and people must ring a bell to be allowed in, which is having a significant effect on footfall.
There are also groups of men hanging around and behaving in an intimidating way, and this is putting a number of my constituents off of going into the town centre. I lose count of the number of times that, when I knock on doors in my constituency, I am told by people that they go shopping elsewhere—that they are shunning their own town centre. That is utterly depressing for people who care passionately about the future of their town.
I have just done a survey on the town centre. I asked people which two options out of eight were the most important to get them back into the town centre; the first was the police adopting a new zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour and crime. I will be working on with Suffolk Constabulary and the Home Office to make sure that that happens.
On the protests that we have been seeing recently, I and a number of my constituents were absolutely appalled and shocked by some of the activity that took place in our nation’s capital last weekend. There were antisemitic posters displaying a hatred that we hope has no place in our society. We saw the police posting pictures of individuals spreading hate—the worst form of hate and racism. Those individuals were not challenged at that moment; it is not enough to post pictures of these individuals after the event, saying, “Who are they? Can you help us?” The police should get in there straightaway, hold these people to account and punish them for the hate they are spreading.
To be perfectly honest, however strongly someone may feel about any cause, whether it is what is happening in Palestine or anything else, if they cannot put their posters and banners aside for two days to remember our war heroes, they should take a serious look in the mirror. People can protest on a Monday, on a Thursday or on a Friday, but that weekend is dedicated to remembering the best of us—the people who have died fighting for this country and its values.
I resented the fact that the marches went ahead at the weekend. I do not think that they should have happened at all, and I made my views incredibly clear on that. I find it utterly depressing that hundreds of thousands of people seem to be prepared, and think it is okay, to go on that kind of protest instead of respecting the people who fought for this country, for what it is, and for its values and institutions.
Tom Hunt
No, I am not going to give way in this speech.
I have great respect for the police of this country, but that does not mean that they do not sometimes get it wrong, or that as Members of Parliament we cannot, from time to time, criticise their approach to an issue. It is completely legitimate to do so. When activists in the streets are aggressively calling for jihad, I do not think it is okay to engage in semantics about what they may or may not have meant. Virtually everyone in this country knew what that person meant when they called for jihad on our streets, and it is despicable that action has not been taken against that individual; it absolutely should be.
With regard to the broader issue of Israel-Palestine, I mourn the loss of life on both sides, as everyone in this House does. I am utterly depressed about the situation, as are most of my constituents. I want a two-state solution, just like everybody else does, but I am not convinced that an immediate ceasefire right now would work or be appropriate, when one side would not respect it and has made that abundantly clear. Hamas must be destroyed. Over four years ago, I went to a kibbutz on the border with Gaza. My understanding is that a good number of those people have now been killed in a massacre. We must never forget the evil that happened that day. The enemy of the people of Gaza is Hamas, and we must work cross-party to support Hamas being destroyed. At the same time, every step must be taken to minimise the loss of life, but it is incredibly hard when Hamas are using innocent people as human shields. That is something we must acknowledge.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I will focus on a few key issues as we debate the first Gracious Speech of His Majesty’s reign. First, I agree wholeheartedly with the Government on one issue: the country needs change. However, I disagree that the solution is a fifth Tory term. My constituents in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney have been hit hard by the Tory failures of the past 13 years, and they want and need the change that only a Labour Government can bring.
In the past two years, British households were the worst hit in western Europe by the energy crisis, due to our high dependency on gas. It is shocking to note that during the worst energy bills crisis in generations, we have an energy policy in the King’s Speech that will not even take a penny off energy bills. It begs the question: have the Conservatives given up on bringing down energy bills for British families? The King’s Speech is more notable, unfortunately, for what is not included than what is.
Focusing on today’s theme, Labour will rebuild public confidence in policing and the criminal justice system, and restore the rule of law on Britain’s streets. Thirteen years of Tory Government have seen over 90% of crimes going unsolved, meaning that criminals are less than half as likely to be caught now compared with under the last Labour Government. In our town centres, police patrols have been reduced, and there are still 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police than in 2015. There was nothing in the King’s Speech to turn that around.
Near-record numbers of victims are dropping out of criminal proceedings—1.6 million last year alone. Record numbers of crimes have been dropped—2.3 million last year—due to no suspect having been identified. The proportion of crimes charged has dropped by 60% since 2015, and the average time it takes for a crime to be charged has trebled since 2016 from 14 days to 42. Many of us receive feedback from our constituents that they never see a bobby on the beat. Labour will restore neighbourhood policing, putting 13,000 more officers and police community support officers on our streets, and introducing a new community policing guarantee to make Britain’s streets safer.
Labour is already leading the way in Wales. Despite not having responsibility for policing, the Welsh Labour Government have provided funding for more than 500 PCSOs across Wales. Labour’s plan will bring back proper neighbourhood policing by ensuring that every part of the country has more local officers and PCSOs, with guaranteed town centre patrols giving every community a named officer they can get in touch with, so that policing gets back to doing what it is supposed to do. I know that many in my constituency and across the country will welcome that. There will also be a dedicated lead focus specifically on tackling antisocial behaviour in local areas. In south Wales, under the leadership of our police and crime commissioner Alun Michael, we are already seeing a greater focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, despite strained resources. It is important that that focus provides an opportunity to work alongside partners in local authorities, the voluntary sector and elsewhere. That work is all the more important against a backdrop of significant financial pressures.
Another issue I want to focus on is the huge variance in fuel costs. Despite words from Ministers, motorists in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney continue to be ripped off at the petrol pumps. Just on Monday this week, petrol was 10p per litre more expensive in Merthyr Tydfil than in neighbouring areas. In Merthyr Tydfil drivers paid 155.9p per litre, while motorists filling up in neighbouring towns paid just 145.7p. National retailer Asda charged drivers at their Merthyr Tydfil store 8p per litre more than in the neighbouring Aberdare store. The Government should be looking at regulation to ensure that drivers right across the country get a better deal when filling up.
It is hard to understand why, after countless promises, there is no legislation to ban conversion therapy in this Parliament. That is an absolute betrayal of the LGBT+ community and people at risk of such abhorrent treatment. We know that conversion practices are abuse and should be outlawed, but the Conservatives have failed on that, as they have on so many other issues. Countless Conservative MPs and Ministers have promised to bring in a ban, and they should apologise for yet another failure. To be clear, Labour would bring in a full, no-loopholes ban on such practices.
No one could fail to be moved by the harrowing scenes on our TV screens coming from the middle east, and I am sure that everyone wants this horror to end. I am supporting the amendment from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and will be voting for it later this evening.
Finally, despite all the Government’s talk on creating good secure jobs, it is very disappointing yet again this year not to hear any measures to outlaw “fire and rehire” practices in the Gracious Speech, especially since those tactics were used by companies throughout the covid pandemic and the Prime Minister himself said that they were unacceptable. On that issue, as on so many others, we hear rhetoric where we need action—not just weak words from a Government on their last legs.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament was most illuminating, in my view, and serves as an excellent statement of intent from His Majesty’s Government.
I remind the House that since 2010 there has been much progress in the area of policing and law and order. The rate of reoffending then stood at 32%, but I am proud to say that in the year 2020-21 it had fallen to 25%. Since 2010, violent crime is down by 52%, domestic burglary by 57%, and vehicle death by 39%. The measures put forward by the Government in this Gracious Speech will, I am sure, be welcomed by people across the country, particularly those who live in fear of crime and antisocial behaviour.
The Criminal Justice Bill contains some excellent proposals. We all saw the terrible Lucy Letby case play out in the courts, and indeed in the press, earlier this year. The Bill will mandate defendants’ attendance at sentencing hearings, ensuring that victims have the right to air their grievances with the defendant present and see justice done at first hand. In addition to giving greater satisfaction to victims through the trial and sentencing process, the Bill will better protect children and young people by increasing maximum penalties for those who have sold weapons to minors, and by strengthening laws tackling individuals in possession of blades with the intent to cause harm.
If we can take knives off our streets and at the same time increase the deterrence, I hope we can continue towards dramatically reducing knife crime and, in particular, the horror of children killing other children. That issue has been a priority for local police and crime commissioners, including my very good friend and colleague Commissioner Mark Shelford in Avon and Somerset.
However, even with all the progress we have made so far, it is still the case that in some of our communities, vulnerable and older residents are afraid to venture outside their homes, especially after dark, and some younger people may also feel intimidated by groups of other young people. The situation has got better since 2010, but there is much more to do and the Criminal Justice Bill is a massive part of the plan to improve our law and order and the safety of our communities.
At the launch of the police and crime commissioner election campaign last week in County Durham, with my colleague Councillor Robert Potts—the Conservative candidate and a former soldier and police officer—I outlined how the Bill empowers our policemen and women to enforce the law better and to stand up for the victims of crime. The Bill will give officers greater access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records and databases in order to identify criminals and bring them to justice. Officers will also be able to enter private premises without a warrant if stolen technology, tracked by GPS, is proven to be at the corresponding location.
The Sentencing Bill will mean that life means life for the most serious and sadistic of offenders who have taken the lives of others. In addition, it will ensure that the most serious sex offenders will serve the whole of their sentence and will not have the opportunity for parole. However, when other prisoners are released on parole, home detention curfews will be extended, and Ministers will have greater oversight of parole boards to ensure that they are accountable to the public. Those measures will ensure that we can keep our streets and communities safer and protect the most vulnerable in our society—that must be the priority for any Government and any police force—while not diminishing the opportunity for rehabilitation, so that people can become better educated when serving their sentences, emerging as better citizens in our society.
The protection and safety of children, the vulnerable and the innocent must be our first priority. Indeed, in the Gracious Speech the Government announced legislation to empower police forces and the criminal justice system to prevent new or complex crime such as digitally enabled crime and child sexual exploitation, including grooming. In addition, the Victims and Prisoners Bill will implement Jade’s law, automatically suspending legal parental responsibility for a parent who commits murder or voluntary manslaughter of their child’s other parent. To further protect women in particular, the Government will bar prisoners convicted of the most serious crimes from marrying or entering civil partnerships in prison in England and Wales.
To sum up, the measures in the King’s Speech encapsulate the values of the Conservative Government. Some on the Opposition Benches have paid lip service to law and order over the years, but we Conservatives have recruited 20,000 police officers and tackled reoffending, and we are deterring crime and making our communities safer.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I will address two issues in my response to the King’s Speech, both of which relate to violence.
In my constituency, we have lost far too many young lives to serious violence, including, since the start of September, Ronaldo Scott and Keelen Morris Wong. Both were brutally murdered in broad daylight with huge knives of the kind known as “Rambo knives” or “zombie knives.” They both leave a community of family, friends and neighbours utterly devastated.
Our communities are playing their part, with support from our local councils and the Mayor of London, in tackling the complex problem of serious violence, but the Government have not been playing their part. A ban on Rambo and zombie knives was promised in 2016, but in response to my recent written question, the Minister said that it would be done “when parliamentary time allows.” The King’s Speech is the moment in our calendar when the Government set out how they will allocate parliamentary time, so I am dismayed that it contains no specific mention of a ban on the largest and most brutal of knives. No one has a legitimate need for a hunting knife in London. By failing to bring forward the ban, the Government are signalling that they simply do not care about the violence being perpetrated in constituencies such as mine.
The second issue I will address is the horror that we are witnessing in Israel and Gaza. The terror attack perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October was an unspeakable violation, the largest slaughter of Jewish people since the holocaust, and the largest terror attack since 9/11. We stand in solidarity with all those affected: the injured, the hostages and the families who are bereaved or desperately worried about loved ones held captive in Gaza. Israel has the right to defend itself—as would any country in the face of such an horrific attack—but that right is not without limit. It is constrained by international law, which protects civilians, critical infrastructure such as hospitals, and critical supplies such as food, water, medicines and energy.
We have witnessed a month of unrelenting bombardment of Gaza. More than 11,000 people have been killed, homes and whole neighbourhoods have been destroyed, hospitals have been left unable to function, and a whole population is being denied access to food, water, energy and medicines. We cannot look at the horror and suffering on our TV screens and conclude that the scale of destruction we are witnessing is proportionate, or that denying aid from entering Gaza is within international law. Again, we must stand in solidarity with all those affected: the injured, the families who are bereaved and those desperately worried about their loved ones in Gaza.
I have heard from thousands of my constituents who have been in contact with me over the past month to share their views. They, too, are completely horrified by what they are seeing, and they want every possible effort to be made to stop the conflict. They understand that that is what is signalled by the word “ceasefire.”
In calling for a ceasefire, no one is suggesting that the cessation should be unilateral or without conditions: Hamas must release the hostages. In war, ceasefires do not always hold, and we must all be realistic about the intensity of this conflict, but a bilateral humanitarian cessation of the violence—a ceasefire—is surely the minimum we should be demanding in the face of such horrific suffering. This is not a minority view, but the view of Oxfam, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Islamic Relief, the Red Crescent, Christian Aid, and all of the major aid agencies with a presence in the region. It is the view of the United Nations and all of its aid agencies. It is the view of our former colleague in this place, David Miliband, as well as of President Macron, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.
On this issue, the overwhelming, prevailing view of my constituents is that where we have an opportunity to call for an end to the horrific suffering in Gaza, we must do so. “Ceasefire” is the word that they understand to mean an end to that horrific suffering.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I am sure my constituents feel very similarly to hers. I think we all want to see a ceasefire—a cessation of hostilities—and we need to have the steps to bring that about. However, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see not only the release of hostages, but an agreement between these two warring factions and the release of prisoners from the other side?
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right. This process is not easy—nobody is saying that it is—but my conscience tells me that calling for a ceasefire is the right thing to do. That is not a unilateral laying-down of arms, but a bilateral humanitarian ceasefire predicated on the release of hostages and leading to an internationally brokered peace process and a two-state solution, with a secure Israel living alongside a sovereign, viable Palestine.
I fully understand that colleagues will have different views from those of their constituents, and there is no easy response to this appalling conflict. We must all treat each other with respect at this time, but we must all be able to stand in front of our own constituents with integrity, and at peace with our own consciences on the issues that matter most to them. My conscience tells me that I must call for a ceasefire today—a halt to this dreadful destruction and conflict. Far too many have already died on both sides, and more will continue to die if the violence does not cease. We must call for a ceasefire.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I am very supportive of the policing and criminal justice aspects of the King’s Speech, but being very aware of the time limit on Members, for the benefit of Ministers—from my point of view, at least—I will just touch on one aspect of the Sentencing Bill. The Government press release for that Bill states:
“The Bill will also make sure vile criminals who commit rape and other serious sexual offences face the full consequences of their actions and spend every day of their sentence behind bars”.
To me, and to most people in the street, that is common sense. If a judge says that someone’s sentence is 10 years, that is what is expected, not five years just because that person has behaved quite well in prison.
However, I would like to file that quote down a little more. It refers to
“vile criminals who commit rape and other serious sexual offences”.
Having some experience of the legislation around child sex offences, I rank very many of those convicted of child sexual abuse as criminals so vile that they should be included in that category. Legislation in this country took a big step to protect children against those criminals in 2003, and since then this country’s child protection legislation has been world leading. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and subsequent developments and improvements have been agreed on a cross-party basis, including the grooming aspects of that Act.
The Act introduced for the first time the biggest step in child protection: the innovation of making child grooming a crime. Even today, few members of the public and probably very few MPs have any real knowledge of just how vile the actions of many paedophiles towards children often are. In Committee on the Sex Offenders Bill in 2003, I became aware that some Members, on both sides of the House, were oblivious to the vile actions that many paedophiles apply to children. Consequently, I arranged an informal cross-party meeting of the Committee with some of the top police from the Met paedophile unit. One MPs asked the superintendent to describe the worst he had come across. He did, and it shattered the Committee members—they were aghast and shocked—and that part of the Bill then went through seamlessly. I will not repeat what the policeman described, suffice it to say that to call it vile is a gross understatement. Those and virtually all other child sex offenders, male or female, can only be described as vile—or worse.
Some years ago, I was saddened to read a short article in a quality UK weekly by a journalist who partially absolved people who collect child sex abuse material. The article’s reasoning was that viewing the photos did not involve their actually touching children. It was appalling. Individuals who collect such photos create a market that induces others to produce them by abusing children. At the other end of the camera is a child being abused.
I hope the Secretary of State for Justice and his Ministers will consider including convicted child abusers among those who should spend every day of their sentence in prison without early release. That includes those who may not have touched a child but who, by collecting what are not infrequently thousands or tens of thousands of images of child abuse pornography, are also culpable, and should hence spend every day of their sentence behind bars, as the judge may decide is appropriate when they are convicted.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
For the last five weeks, I have been watching in utter despair as Hamas killed hundreds of innocent Israelis and took over 200 hostages, and as the Israeli military killed over 11,000 Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians who have been killed are women and children, not Hamas fighters. They have been killed in their homes, schools and refugee camps, in churches and mosques, while delivering aid and in hospitals as patients, staff and those taking shelter.
At Al-Shifa Hospital, premature babies lie starving, are wrapped in foil to stay warm and are waiting to die. There is no oxygen, no food and no fuel to run generators. As we speak, Israeli troops have entered the hospital, putting patients and staff at grave risk. Over at the Al-Quds Hospital, Israel has fired live ammunition directly at the intensive care unit, with most of the victims being children. There are no longer any working hospitals in northern Gaza due to the depletion of fuel, lack of power and constant attacks. I have seen pictures of parents carrying pieces of their babies—their children—in a carrier bag. There are still thousands of people missing, buried alive under the rubble of the half of Gaza’s houses that have been destroyed.
Across this country, we have seen hundreds of thousands of people peacefully marching on the streets and urging the Government to call for a ceasefire, despite the former Home Secretary’s branding them hate marches. The people of Britain have continued to turn out week after week to demand justice for Palestinians, and contrary to what she claimed, the violence at this weekend’s protests was by the far right during the two-minute silence to mark Remembrance Day. Emboldened by the former Home Secretary’s extreme hate-filled rhetoric, they attacked the police and chanted Islamophobic slogans. Today’s debate is about raising confidence in policing. As a former Greater Manchester Police officer, I believe it is shameful that the Tories are the biggest driver undermining that.
I have visited Israel and Palestine and seen the discrimination and suffering of Palestinians in the west bank and occupied territories. I have championed the need for a two-state solution whereby Israelis and Palestinians can both live peacefully. It is extremely painful to watch the sheer scale of Palestinians being displaced—more than one and a half million already. That reminds me of my visit to a UN refugee camp in Iraq, where I met three generations of Palestinian women living in a tent. The grandmother had been displaced in 1948. Her daughter had been born into a refugee camp, and that daughter had just given birth in a different refugee camp—three generations born in three different refugee camps. That is the reality for so many Palestinians, but it does not need to be like that.
If we had had a ceasefire yesterday, 144 Gazan children would still be alive today. Israel has already crossed every red line imaginable and broken international humanitarian laws. History has shown us that military actions alone do not resolve conflicts, and Israel’s use of force will not resolve this one. We need a full and immediate ceasefire now. My constituents have demanded that, and I will not refuse them. Supporting a ceasefire is the very least we can do.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a joy to participate in this debate on the King’s Speech from the Back Benches again, following my year of exile in the Government Whips Office. If I had more time I would have commented on some of the amendments calling for a ceasefire and addressing the situation in Israel and Gaza, and on some of the scenes we have seen on our streets in this country over a few weeks. However, due to lack of time, I can say no better than that I agree with every word that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) said earlier in what I thought was an excellent speech.
On the other aspect of today’s debate, criminal justice and policing, I welcome the measures that the Government are bringing forward, because they build on the positive progress that we have made over the past 13 years to bring down crime and improve our criminal justice system. Clearly there is more to do, and I welcome the measures to ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes and are convicted serve the whole of their sentence in prison. That is absolutely right.
I also welcome the measures to address drug and knife crime and antisocial behaviour. We are lucky enough in Cornwall to live in one of the lowest crime areas of the country, but we have a significant problem with antisocial behaviour. The two main towns that I represent, Newquay and St Austell, both have significant issues with antisocial behaviour. That issue is raised with me frequently by local residents, and I look forward to working with the Government to see what more we can do to address it.
Labour Members have mentioned raising confidence in policing. For the sake of transparency, I declare that a member of my immediate family is a serving police officer, and as a family we are very proud of them and the work they do. It is incredibly welcome that we have delivered on our manifesto promise to recruit an additional 20,000 police officers. In Devon and Cornwall we now have 3,715 serving police officers, which is 600 more than in December 2019 and a record number. We must ensure that those additional police officers are seen and felt on the front line. The public need to see and feel that we have those additional police officers on the front line, and that is not always the case. I encourage the Government to look at the reasons why that is not seen to be the case, and to see what more can be done.
We must ensure that police officers spend their time doing police work. One thing I have observed from going out on patrol with police officers in my constituency is just how much of their time is spent filling the gaps left by other parts of the public sector, whether that is the NHS, the local authority or, in particular, social services. It is not right that police officers are expected to spend so much of their time doing work they are not trained to do and that should be the responsibility of other parts of the public sector. I encourage the Government and, in particular, Home Office Ministers to look at what more can be done to ensure police officers spend their time preventing and fighting crime, rather than filling the gaps left by other parts of the public sector.
We also need to recognise that our expectation of policing has changed massively in recent years, and to understand the greater scrutiny that our police officers are under. Many of them welcome that, but some of the recent coverage in the media is having an impact on the morale of police officers on the frontline. We need to be aware of that. Many are concerned that, just for doing what they believe is the right thing to deliver the job, they may be held up and possibly even lose their job. While it is right that we hold them to account and that we remove those rogue bad apples that are inevitably in any organisation of that size, we need to recognise that the vast majority of police officers are decent, honest and professional, and they simply want to do a good job to serve the public and keep us all safe.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I rise to support the amendments in my name and amendment (h), and to highlight the failures of this King’s Speech to ensure that the Government uphold international humanitarian law.
Yusof and his two older siblings counted themselves lucky. Their dad, a radiographer at the local hospital in Khan Yunis, had installed solar panels at their house, so even when their neighbourhood lost power, they could still watch their favourite cartoons. That is what they were doing when an airstrike hit from Israel. Miraculously, Yusof’s brother Hamed was unharmed. His sister Jury was found in the rubble. She was injured, but alive. Yusof’s mother searched in vain for her youngest son. She went to the hospital, asking if anyone had seen her “handsome and curly-haired” boy. It was Yusof’s dad who found him. His body had been taken to the morgue. Yusof was seven years old when he was killed. His dream was to be a doctor when he grew up. On his final day, he ran and hugged his dad before he left for work. His dad recalled:
“Yusof kissed me and said goodbye”.
Yusof is one of the more than 4,600 children and more than 11,000 Palestinians of all ages who have been killed in Israel’s assault on Gaza. The World Health Organisation says that a Palestinian child is being killed every 10 minutes; Yusof was one of those. Behind every number we read and behind every horrifying statistic we hear, there were hopes and dreams just as real and just as valuable as yours and mine. I cannot believe that it has to be said, but it clearly does: Palestinian lives matter just as much as anyone else’s.
Israel’s assault on Gaza has now killed one in every 200 Palestinians in the besieged enclave. Hospitals, ambulances and refugee camps have been targeted. Premature babies in incubators—let me repeat that: premature babies in incubators—are dying because hospitals have run out of fuel. In the illegally occupied west bank, where Hamas are not in power, around 200 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces or armed settlers. We could spend all day listing the horrors that the likes of the United Nations Secretary-General, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said amount to clear violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.
The truth is that Israeli officials have been open about their intent. At the beginning of the assault, an Israeli military spokesperson said that the emphasis in bombing was on “damage…not accuracy.” A former head of the National Security Council said that the aim was to make Gaza
“a place where no human being can exist.”
This weekend an Israeli Government Minister said that the war would be “Gaza’s Nakba”, a reference to the 1948 catastrophe where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homelands and never allowed to return.
None of that is to downplay Hamas’s appalling killing of Israeli civilians. I have condemned that already and do so again today. I repeat the calls for the release of all hostages, but, as the UN Secretary General said, none of those crimes excuses what we have seen since. Unlike those crimes, Israel’s assault on Gaza has been done with the Government’s unequivocal support and complicity, and almost certainly with British-made arms—[Interruption.] I see smirking on the Government Front Bench; personally, I do not think it is a laughing matter. When the Government refuse to support a ceasefire, they give Israel the green light to continue its slaughter of innocent Palestinians. When they refuse to support a ceasefire, they are refusing to push back against Israeli politicians and policies that aim to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their lands.
I am utterly horrified that, after all that, Members of this House are still willing to give Israel the green light, proposing nothing more than humanitarian pauses. There is nothing humanitarian about letting children eat a little today only to bomb them tomorrow. The only humanitarian way forward is an immediate ceasefire, as has been recognised by everyone from the Pope to the President of France, as well as 76% of the British public, according to polling. To hon. Members across the House, I say this: the children killed in Gaza today could have been saved by a ceasefire agreed yesterday, so I urge and implore you on this. We will be remembered for this vote, so let us be on the right side of history and vote for a ceasefire.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate on the first King’s Speech of His Majesty’s reign. I pay tribute to him for his unstinting service to our country and the Commonwealth, carrying on the truly humbling legacy of his mother, Her Majesty our late Queen.
It is important that those who commit crime must feel the full force of the law and serve the penalty for the crime they have committed. I very much welcome the Government’s clear commitment to that in the King’s Speech. The Sentencing Bill will introduce steps to ensure tougher sentences for criminals and increase the confidence of victims. It is heartening that the Government have also announced a Criminal Justice Bill to let our police tackle the developing crimes of our age.
It is important that we heard a commitment to ensuring that the treatment of victims will be a key feature of the Government’s approach to crime. I believe that at the heart of the desire for a firm and effective criminal justice system is the shared belief that everyone deserves safe and secure communities in which to thrive, and our amazing police forces are key to that. I pay tribute to our police, the security services and our military, who do so much to keep us safe.
The Government have delivered an extra 20,000 police officers nationally, and I welcome that. In Cumbria, we have seen a more visible police presence on our streets and more police stations opening up. As a local illustration, since PC Stewart Green started as the community beat officer in Penrith in July, there has been a 15.7% reduction in antisocial behaviour compared with in the same period last year. My constituents, who live in rural areas, are often affected very different types of crime. Rural communities face issues such as theft of farm equipment and machinery, fly-tipping, hare coursing, poaching, wildlife crime, and the theft of pets, farm livestock and indeed horses. I welcome how, over the course of the Parliament, the Government have taken important steps to tackle that. Those crimes also affect the mental health and wellbeing of our rural communities, which I am passionate about. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently published a report on rural mental health and has noted the impact of such incidents on our communities.
I am proud that the Government have a strong record of action on animal welfare in this Parliament. In the King’s Speech, their commitment to banning live exports for fattening and slaughter is a clear sign that they support our high animal welfare standards. I look forward to them continuing that in this new Session on issues such as puppy smuggling, the smuggling of heavily pregnant dogs, banning the importation of dogs with horrifically cropped ears and tackling pet theft.
Biosecurity is pivotal to national security, and it is so important that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is supported in tackling infectious diseases such as avian influenza. At the EFRA Committee, when we had the Secretary of State and permanent secretary before us, we reaffirmed how important it is that APHA’s Weybridge site is redeveloped.
On the safety of our communities, I am fully behind the Prime Minister in bringing forward the necessary ban on the American XL Bully dog to keep both people and other animals safe.
I would like to give my wholehearted support to the Government’s timely commitment to the Holocaust Memorial Bill. In a deeply troubling time for the Jewish community, it is only right that we make sure the holocaust is never forgotten.
I strongly support many Bills in the King’s Speech, including on improving transport connectivity. It is important that they go ahead. The Renters (Reform) Bill will give renters and landlords important rights and is to be welcomed. The tobacco and vapes Bill has my full support and is a landmark step to eradicate the threat of vaping for our under-18s. I hope that the Bill will be wide-ranging and that we truly get a grip on a potential ticking time bomb for public health. I welcome the football governance Bill and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her strong work leading the fan-led review.
I very much welcome the Government’s legislative agenda in the new Session, which is strong on criminal justice and on empowering our communities and keeping them safe and prosperous.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks), who is no longer in his place, on his excellent maiden speech.
I was excited to witness, for the first time as a Member of this place, His Majesty deliver his first Gracious Speech. I turned up last week eager to hear the Government’s comprehensive and ambitious plans for the parliamentary Session, but what the Government had to offer was nothing short of threadbare. Perhaps if the Prime Minister had spent less time on the phone to his predecessors trying to get them to come and save his skin, he could have drawn up a plan to get our country building again and to help working people get on the housing ladder.
Sadly, there is a complete absence of home building in the Government’s legislative programme. The aspiration to own one’s own home sits strongly in the British people. It is not just an aspiration to own property but an aspiration for security—a roof over their head and those of their family, and a solid foundation on which to build their future. But far too many are locked out of that ambition, watching as the dream of owning their own home is eroded by soaring inflation, record high energy bills and the highest tax burden on the British people since the post-war period. The British people do not lack ambition. They know the potential in their communities. But we must take the decisions here that meet their ambition out there.
Getting the balance right between green space and building what we need is vital, and it can be done. The agricultural industry is so important to my constituents. Our farmland does not just contribute to the local and national economy but keeps the country fed. We can protect our farmers and their land while finding space to build the homes we need for the future. A green belt policy that protects disused car parks while green spaces are handed over to developers simply does not work. The grey belt space is there, often adding nothing and in some cases blighting our communities. We must have the ambition to use it.
I say to the Prime Minister that in West Lancashire we are open for business. Skelmersdale is the most populated area in my constituency, with around 40,000 people making Skem their home. When the spades first entered the ground in Skelmersdale in the 1960s, the new town was intended to provide homes to over 80,000 people, but 60 years later, we have not reached that number. We have the potential to deliver the homes we need to realise the aspirations of a modern Britain, but we cannot do that without the critical infrastructure that sits alongside it and has too often been ignored in recent developments. Human beings need more than just a roof over our heads. We need connectivity, services and community. Skelmersdale has been without a train station since 1958—three years before it was designated a new town. It is one of the largest towns in the entire country without a station, and is the perfect candidate for levelling-up funds, but it has received none. Projects such as a new railway station in Skem would constitute a genuinely new offer for transport regeneration in the north-west.
Claims that the Government are levelling up through investment in the Network North project are also, frankly, laughable. Despite fanfare and promises, there is little on offer for communities like mine. The now Prime Minister once boasted about changing the public funding formulas to divert funding away from deprived urban communities to more prosperous towns. Since then, communities crying out for investment have seen more of the same. Take a cursory glance at some of the projects referenced in the Government’s Network North proposals and you will find that many of them already exist.
It is not just our trains that are not working. Devoid of ideas and vision for this country, the Government sent their own MPs home early on half the parliamentary sitting days in the last Session. There are no signs of that changing with the King’s Speech, which contains the fewest new Bills in almost a decade. The sad reality of the situation is that the Prime Minister has no confidence in his Government to get legislation through Parliament. He does not even trust his own MPs enough to make one of them the Foreign Secretary. Even worse than that, the Prime Minister seemingly has no confidence in himself. Like King Midas on opposite day, everything he touches turns to disaster. It is clear that the Government have given up on governing, so why not let the British people decide at a general election?
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a privilege to represent the constituents of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which is characterised by a very strong community spirit in the eight villages that make up the constituency. Thankfully, today our Metropolitan police figures show that from Harefield to Hatch End we continue to experience low levels of crime overall and that it is a safe place to work, live and raise a family. However, many constituents remain concerned about matters relating to law and order. As part of the Greater London area comprising our capital, issues from disorder associated with recent marches in the centre of London through to the rising impact of online and digital crime are at the forefront of our minds. Even in an area which looks and feels safe to most residents, there are examples of particular individuals and groups feeling vulnerable. They deserve our attention to ensure that this is a place where all our people are able to feel, and be, safe.
That is why I welcome the measures contained in the King’s Speech that aim to update our laws to take account of changing circumstances in the world and in our society, to keep people safe in the face of the emerging challenges. The Victims and Prisoners Bill represents a suite of measures intended to improve the way in which we deal with crime and the victims of crime. Engaging with constituents, I have been struck on a number of occasions by the need to ensure effective and appropriate support for women and girls who have been victims of crimes targeted against them, particularly, in our local area, harassment on public transport. I welcome Transport for London’s response to our lobbying, seeking to make public transport a safer space for women and girls. The move to place the victims code on a statutory footing and the minimum service levels set out for victims are a great opportunity to ensure that our response after a crime is of a higher and more consistent standard than has been the case in the past. On the whole, our police do an excellent job in always challenging circumstances, but ensuring that all victims benefit from a consistent standard of treatment will further build public confidence in our police.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill represents a significant step forward in helping constituents to feel confident online. Robbery has become a vanishingly rare occurrence in my constituency and across the capital, but scams, online fraud and targeted crimes such as push-payment frauds are becoming a significant and growing concern to many. For those who, for whatever reason, may feel less confident going online, they are a barrier to engaging in our increasingly digital society. As we have seen that growth, it is welcome that the Government are responding with effective measures to deal with digital crime. As that has paralleled a consistent fall in in-person crime, our legal framework needs to be updated through the Bill to take account of the changing world and its new risks.
Finally, I wish to touch briefly on the ceasefire amendments. Like all Members, I have received many representations about the events following the Hamas terror attack of 7 October and the targeted massacre of civilians. I represent a very diverse constituency and have engaged with constituents who have been personally affected both by the events in Israel, and the attacks and issues for family members in Gaza. Each have presented incredibly distressing issues, which I know have moved many in the whole country and have been expressed in this House tonight.
I particularly welcome the work done by the Government —as well as the regular updates on it that we have been receiving in the House—to support humanitarian efforts for the residents of Gaza, who are themselves, of course, victims of Hamas in their own right. The humanitarian pauses that have been agreed represent progress. Ours is a country that upholds international law and remains committed to the leading example of international human rights law—the European convention on human rights, based on our own domestic law—as well as the wider international laws of war and humanitarian law. I therefore welcome the Government’s clear and unambiguous commitment to press all parties to ensure that those laws are respected in Israel and Gaza.
The note of realism that was struck by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) —he is not in the Chamber this evening—on the BBC this morning very much reflects my view that there has been a long-term cycle of violence that is costing many lives on both sides, especially since Hamas took over the governance of Gaza in 2006. Their absolute refusal to countenance a ceasefire, now or on any previous occasion, tends to nullify the humanitarian purpose of ceasefire calls from many quarters. If we are to break that long-term cycle of violence, we need to ensure that we do not vote for a ceasefire that would undermine that.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
My constituents know that I stand in solidarity with those affected by the atrocities in the middle east. As Liberal Democrats, we call for an immediate ceasefire and a two-state solution, and a path to peace in the long term.
It is a privilege to speak in a debate on the King’s Speech—the King’s first Speech. May I begin by passing my condolences to the family of Lord Cotter? Brian Cotter was a Somerset man, and a tireless advocate for both small businesses and mental health.
The Home Secretary may have changed, but it is still “same old” with this Government. Charge rates are the lowest they have been for years, especially those for burglary. One of my constituents had £55,000-worth of equipment stolen in September, and has still not met an officer. While I welcome the success of Operation Soteria Bluestone, pioneered by the Avon and Somerset force, it is not enough for the Government to rest on the laurels of the academics and the officers who created it. We need to create a pipeline of trust by committing ourselves to educating all boys and men about violent crimes against women and girls. We also need more officers from diverse backgrounds, and a policing culture that welcomes and values them. Simple numbers in uniforms are simply not enough without thorough vetting and training. We need trusted, visible and local community police officers who are much more effective in their communities than police and crime commissioners. The Liberal Democrats have already committed themselves to all those changes.
Delay is the mantra of this Government, and nowhere do we feel that more than in Somerset. We are missing out on 18,000 new homes because they are in the levels and moors catchment area—a designated site of special scientific interest endangered by the high levels of phosphates in our water systems. I have 600 constituents on the waiting list for affordable housing. In Frome the average rent is nearly £1,500 a month, making up 50% of the average salary. One family of six are currently living in a two-bedroom apartment.
At this point, I must declare an interest as a proudly active Somerset councillor. Without new houses, the council cannot enforce section 106 agreements that make developers provide funds for the benefit of local communities, or claim the community infrastructure levy. A recent no-cost trial in the west country, led by Somerset Council, showed that modular water treatment units removed more than 98% of phosphates and 88% of nitrates. I want to see the Somerset partnership’s bid to the nutrient mitigation fund granted, and adopted across those affected areas. We do not need to be stuck in an archaic binary of either not building anything or scrapping environmental safeguards. The Liberal Democrats will use a new blue flag standard to protect our water, including wild swimming areas such as the site in Farleigh Hungerford in my constituency. We will also build 150,000 new social homes a year. Those aims do not need to be mutually exclusive.
As a farmer, I could see that the only potential Brexit benefit was common agricultural policy reform, but the Government have botched that, leaving many farmers on the brink. Farmers need the security of clearly communicated long-term planning, not being left in the dark over de-linked payments and betrayed on pompous flag-waving trade deals. In the meantime, Somerset high streets are emptying fast. Local shops, banks, post offices, pharmacies, GP surgeries and NHS dentists are all being priced out by the Tory business rates, forcing residents to travel further to access their needs. We will reform high street business rates and work hard to ensure that nobody is out of reach of banking services and affordable food. The Liberal Democrats listen, plan and act. Please, let’s move forward. Let’s call a general election now.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I would like to start by thanking His Majesty King Charles III for his speech and echoing the comments of many of my hon. Friends and colleagues regarding how special it is to be speaking in the first King’s Speech debate for 70 years. Today’s debate on policing and the criminal justice system is of particular significance, as these are issues I am often contacted about as the Member of Parliament for Broxtowe. The safety of our families and loved ones must be of the highest priority.
It was reassuring to see the Sentencing Bill announced in the King’s Speech. Tougher sentences for the worst offenders will ensure that dangerous individuals are off our streets and not endangering the public. I would like to put on record my personal thanks to all those police officers in the UK who serve our country, especially those within Nottinghamshire, and also to thank all those who work for the police in supporting roles. I will single out one individual in particular: neighbourhood policing inspector, Inspector Mike Ebbins, who I regularly meet to discuss the specific crimes affecting people in Broxtowe. It is essential that we are keeping our communities safe. This will also be achieved through the Criminal Justice Bill, which seeks to empower our police forces and justice system to prevent crimes such as digitally enabled crime.
I am glad to see a focus on the welfare of victims. Keeping victims at the centre of our criminal justice system and ensuring that as much support as possible is in place for them is essential. I welcome these new measures, especially the proposals in the Victims and Prisoners Bill to monitor how criminal justice bodies comply with the victims code. The Bill also sets out plans to improve support for victims, including a statutory duty for partner agencies to collaborate. The Bill will have a hugely positive impact on those most needing our support.
I would like to put on record my deep disappointment that a mental health Bill was left out of the King’s Speech. Since first being elected, I have been campaigning for mental health reform and the increased support that is desperately needed across the UK. I was encouraged recently when the Government published the suicide prevention strategy, but it does not go far enough. I stood in this Chamber in 2020 and debated the huge merits of the Mental Health Act White Paper. Having a person-centred approach to in-patient facilities, and removing autism and learning disabilities from being categorised in the Act as mental health disorders, are changes that are missing today, and that is of course a detriment to many throughout the UK. I implore the Government to start prioritising mental health reform as soon as possible.
The King’s Speech also discussed the importance of looking after veterans. As a veteran myself, I am passionate that the UK should become the best country in the world for a veteran to live. The Government have made huge strides in veteran care in recent years, and we have the first ever Minister for Veterans’ Affairs attending Cabinet in order to prioritise that care. We have had many successes in improving services for veterans since establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, such as the dedicated referral pathways for mental health, physical health and homelessness established by Operation Courage, Operation Restore and Operation Fortitude.
I recently had the pleasure of opening the first ever military service leavers pathway into policing, which I am proud to champion. The course is the first of its kind, and I look forward to seeing service leavers take up their place in Nottinghamshire police.
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point on the value that veterans can contribute not just to public sector employers such as the police but to so many private sector employers. Military service is a driver in raising skill levels. Does he have any thoughts on how these skills could be better used in future?
Darren Henry
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the value of veterans’ transferable skills, teambuilding and sense of duty. Those things are important and can be transferred to many forms of employment, particularly policing.
The military-to-policing scheme gives veterans a direct pathway into the police via the police constable degree apprenticeship, ensuring that skills gained in the military are transferred to a new career following a shortened training scheme.
It would be remiss of me not to mention my disappointment at seeing incredibly important areas, such as mental health, not addressed in the King’s Speech, as they should have been. However, I welcome the proposed Bills and believe that many will have a directly positive impact on my constituents in Broxtowe.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In speaking to amendments (h) and (r), the House will be aware that I have openly called for a negotiated ceasefire on both sides, along with the release of all hostages. However, neither the Israeli Government nor Hamas have agreed to an immediate ceasefire. Hamas have stated that they will continue with their strikes against Israel, and they have not heeded repeated calls by the UN and others for an unconditional release of all hostages. Likewise, the Israeli Government have rejected growing international calls for a ceasefire and have continued with their relentless bombing. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that a ceasefire would be possible only if all 239 hostages were released.
Who is suffering intolerably in the meanwhile? The Palestinian people. After the Hamas terror strikes that tragically resulted in the killing of well over 1,000 Israelis, I told the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House that, while Israel has a right to defend its citizens and rescue its hostages, its response must be proportionate and submit to international law. However, over 11,000 Palestinians—and rising—have been killed.
Shockingly, in just 40 days, one in every 200 people living in Gaza is no more. I have been particularly horrified by the killing of more than 4,600 innocent children. That is one child dying every 12 minutes. The number of children killed in just over four weeks of Israeli bombardment has surpassed the number killed in conflict zones across the globe every year since 2019. As a parent of two children, I cannot imagine what their parents are going through, if indeed they are still alive.
Whether or not the Israeli Government and Hamas listen to our pleas, I believe we must call for an end to the violence to save lives. The Netanyahu Government must be made to realise that razing Gaza to the ground and indiscriminately killing Palestinians will not lead to safety and security for people living in the region. It will merely fuel more anger and resentment, taking us further away from peace and prosperity for all and from a viable two-state solution. I have always spoken up for human rights, and in the past six years I have often spoken up for innocent Palestinians, who have suffered decades of injustice, occupation and forceful removal from their homes. They are now facing an atrocious siege and further bloodshed.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he agree that we need a ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities—we can use whichever words we choose? I sense he does agree with that or certainly with the sentiment. Does he also have a frustration that the Scottish National party amendment before us tonight is designed as a political ploy, and therefore we will not be voting for it and will vote instead for the Labour amendment?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who is correct in what he says. A lot of our constituents will not be aware of the procedures and protocols of Parliament, and how Labour Members hardly, if ever, vote for any SNP amendments. This raises another important point that my constituents have been emailing me about: signing early-day motions. I have been trying to explain to constituents, on the doorstep and elsewhere, that hundreds of early-day motions are in circulation at any given time and that shadow Ministers, such as myself, and Ministers never sign them and they do not have the requisite power. Those are some of the protocols that my constituents and others will not be aware of.
I wish to thank the Labour Front-Bench team, who have listened patiently to the passionate arguments of Members such as myself and tabled a comprehensive amendment last night addressing our concerns. First, it calls for
“an end to the violence in Israel and Palestine.”
That is what we all want to see. Secondly, it reaffirms
“the jurisdiction of the ICC to address the conduct of all parties”,
so that we can ascertain what war crimes have occurred. Thirdly, it calls on Israel to
“lift the siege conditions allowing food, water, electricity, medicine and fuel into Gaza”.
Fourthly, it calls on us to
“guarantee that people in Gaza who are forced to flee during this conflict can return to their homes and seek an end to the expansion of illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank”.
Fifthly, it addresses the road map and how we can get
“an enduring cessation of fighting—
basically, a ceasefire—
“as soon as possible and a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution.”
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for what was recently voted the most royalist constituency in the country, Old Bexley and Sidcup, it is an honour to speak in this historic debate and to thank His Majesty for his first Gracious Speech as King, which set out the Government’s priority to make the difficult but necessary long-term decisions to change this country for the better.
I am proud of not only our royal family and the pageantry of this country, which was clearly on display at last week’s state opening, but of our police officers throughout the country, including our brilliant police officers in Old Bexley and Sidcup, and their dedication to our local community. That is the driving force of our raising confidence in policing, which is of course a key part of today’s debate. I would also like to place on the record my thanks to Sergeant Dave Catlow and all the team for their ongoing work in tackling vehicle crime, and to congratulate police community support officer Steve Graves on his 20 years of service to our community.
I welcome the fact that the King’s Speech reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to keeping communities safe from crime, antisocial behaviour, terrorism and illegal migration. At a time when threats to national security are changing rapidly due to new technology, it is welcome that the Government will give the security and intelligence services the powers they need, and will strengthen independent judicial oversight through the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill. I also welcome the fact that the King’s Speech announced that legislation will be introduced to better protect public premises from terrorism in the light of the Manchester Arena attack, through the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. That was an issue my predecessor and friend the late James Brokenshire worked so diligently on during his time as Security Minister.
One of the best ways to raise confidence in policing in London is to ensure that the thousands of decent, hard-working police officers can continue to focus on fighting crime in the communities they serve. However, under the Labour Mayor of London, as the police and crime commissioner for London, that is difficult for communities such as Bexley because his tri-borough policing policy negatively impacts community policing in Bexley, as well as the ability of police to connect with communities and respond to crimes in a timely manner. It is also extremely inefficient to merge police resources in boroughs with so little in common, often leaving safer boroughs, such as Bexley, with few resources, as we have seen in recent weeks when there were protests in central London.
Having more police officers is central to having a visible police and law enforcement presence, so I welcome the successful recruitment of an extra 20,000 police officers by the end of March this year, bringing the total number to nearly 150,000 officers across the country and reflecting the Government’s determination to ensure that people feel safe in their communities. Notably, this year’s £16.9 billion police settlement includes specific funding for PCCs to drive the recruitment of those officers.
Sadly, it is frustrating and concerning that despite being given that extra money by the Government to hire more police officers, the Mayor of London has failed to spend it and the Metropolitan Police Service was the only force in the country to fail to hit its recruitment target, missing out on over 1,000 extra officers who could be helping to keep Londoners safe. Despite his ongoing claims to have no money, and despite blaming everyone else for his many failures over the past seven and a half years as Mayor, he has had to pay some of that money back to the Government for failing to hit that target. Sadiq Khan has also closed many police front counters, such as the one at Sidcup station. Quite clearly, the Mayor of London needs to be put into special measures right now.
It is of paramount importance that the police are equipped with the powers and tools they need to protect the public. I welcome Government measures to tighten the law around zombie knives and I recognise that stop and search is an important tool to keep our streets safe, when used properly. About 400 knives and weapons are taken off the streets every month using stop and search in London alone. I also welcome that the Government—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire is in his place—are looking closely at scan and search to help detect knives. I will continue to lobby for that, given its potential to help improve community safety and end that awful crime.
Restoring confidence in our criminal justice system goes hand in hand with restoring confidence in policing. That is vital in our action to tackle violence against women and girls, and I wholeheartedly support the steps that the Government are taking. It is right that the most serious offenders, including those who have committed violent and sexual offences, should spend more time in prison to help keep the public safe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Every day since 7 October, news from Gaza and Israel becomes yet more painful to watch, even for those of us who can choose to look away. While the horrific attack on Israeli citizens by Hamas was appalling, the response by Israel’s military is devastating the lives of ordinary people in Gaza. My party has heard the testimony of several Welsh-Palestinian families who have lost relatives in Gaza. Aymen Aladham, an IT consultant in Swansea, has told us how in three separate air strikes in Gaza last month he lost 18 members of his family. The pain and anguish people such as Aymen must be experiencing now is beyond imagining.
Those who survive must seek shelter in a diminishing number of places. Half of all Gaza’s homes are damaged or destroyed. Universities and schools are under frequent attack. We are witnessing in real time the complete collapse of vital infrastructure to support human life, include power lines and water desalination plants. One doctor describes how hospitals in Gaza are now practising medieval-style medicine, with premature babies huddled together to keep warm because their incubators no longer work, and doctors operating on patients without electricity or anaesthetic. In what perversion of international law can anyone justify turning a hospital into a battlefield? That must end. The UN Secretary General has said that
“in the name of humanity”
there needs to be a ceasefire now.
It is clear that humanitarian pauses alone are not enough. First, the facts on the ground render them invalid. The UN agency for Palestine has said that communications in Gaza will start to fail as of tomorrow when telecommunications companies run out of fuel to operate their data centres and major connection sites. Without reliable communications, people will not know when the current four-hour pauses in the bombing begin, or indeed when they can begin to undertake the perilous journey across Gaza without access to fuel.
Secondly, a pause as opposed to a ceasefire presumes and makes accommodation for the resumption of violence, which means more children dying, more homes destroyed, and more lives ruined. A pause is a tacit endorsement of the position that more bombs and bullets are the answer to this crisis. Rather, we should be reaching for a political solution using diplomacy and dialogue. That can happen only with a full and immediate ceasefire. Not only would this stop needless deaths of Palestinians, but it would of course allow for the safe release of the hostages captured by Hamas.
Last week, Plaid Cymru tabled a motion in the Senedd calling for an immediate ceasefire. I am pleased to say that the motion passed with 11 Labour MSs and one Liberal Democrat MS joining our calls for peace. Some people here may doubt the strength of the Senedd’s call for a ceasefire but, together, nation after nation can make a powerful statement for peace, and Westminster now has the opportunity to join Wales. We can show the innocent civilians in Gaza and the families of Israeli hostages who are desperate for their safe return that we stand with them. We can tell the world that antisemitism is intolerable and that Islamophobia is intolerable. These are the voices that need to be heard when we use the ability of this place, which is great, to amplify a call. It is in that spirit of unity and peace that I urge colleagues from across the House to support the amendment today.
Finally, to those who say that this amendment has been tabled for political reasons, I say that they are doing that thing that belittles us in the eyes of many of our constituents: we are talking about party political interests. We all have constituents who believe firmly that a ceasefire is the only and the right way forward. It is our duty in this place to enable their voice to be heard, and I shall be supporting amendment (h).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I apologise, but in order to get the last seven Members in, we will have to drop the time limit to four minutes.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on His Majesty’s first King’s Speech, especially on the vital issue of crime and confidence in our police and criminal justice system.
Under the Conservative Government, crime and antisocial behaviour are having a massive impact on communities in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. Last year, my constituency had the highest rate of knife crime in Birmingham. In one area, covering Stockland Green and Kingstanding, the West Midlands Ambulance Service was called out to treat, on average, three victims of knife crime every month.
A constituent contacted me last month. He said, “My friend recently had his skull cracked on the high street. Four guys tried to rob him and then stamped on him. I haven’t seen a police officer up there in months.”
I hosted a meeting last month of all the local traders on our high street in Erdington. One woman told me that she works alone all day. She said that, from 8am to 11pm, there are constantly people dealing drugs outside her shop—when she arrives, while she is working, and when she closes up. But unfortunately, even though she constantly rings the police, she never sees anybody.
The Conservative Government have cut the police force by 15% since Labour left office, leaving us with the lowest number of officers since the early 1980s. That was reckless and short-sighted. It is no wonder that our local community does not trust the Government’s action on antisocial behaviour; there is not any.
On the impact that the King’s Speech could have had, it could have pledged to restore neighbourhood policing, as Labour has, and put 13,000 more officers and PCSOs on our streets. It could have guaranteed town centre patrols, as Labour has pledged to, so that people could walk down high streets such as mine after 5 pm and at night without worrying about violence. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The Government are wrong to think that our constituents will give up. We need to stop the decline and start fighting for a better future.
Finally, I want to talk about the struggle I have had with the SNP amendment. I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who, like many across the UK, have been witnessing horrifying scenes in Israel and Gaza since 7 October. I am a nurse and I cannot sit idly by while I know that people are facing the worse suffering imaginable, especially elderly women and babies in hospitals across Gaza. It is clear to me that we need increased humanitarian aid. That is why I am calling for a temporary bilateral ceasefire to ensure that innocent civilians leave Gaza and access the aid that they desperately want. I ask this House to think twice about the SNP amendment, because it has been tabled to cause division, and together we stand, divided we fall.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is with great sadness and frustration that I must speak again in this House about the failure of the Government to uphold the responsibilities that they have to the 97 people unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, to their families and friends, and to survivors. After 27 years of the fight by families for truth and justice, the 2016 inquests—the longest jury hearings in British history—ended with jurors ruling that the fans who died at the FA cup semi-final were unlawfully killed, and that the catalogue of failings by police and public officials contributed to their deaths. Shamefully, nobody has been held accountable for the needless deaths, injuries and enduring trauma suffered at Hillsborough, despite the 2016 inquest verdicts. We need changes in law to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated, and that there is a legacy from the tragedy.
In 2017, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), asked the then Bishop of Liverpool, Reverend James Jones, to conduct a review into the lessons to be learned from Hillsborough. The recommendations of that review, called “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, were published in November 2017. Six years later, on 7 November, in a letter sent out by the former Home Secretary, the Government promised to publish their full response to Bishop James Jones’s report on Wednesday 6 December. Will the Minister confirm, either at the Dispatch Box now or in writing, that that commitment will be honoured? There can be no more delays.
In the time we have waited for the Government to respond, Parliament could have passed the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, initially presented to the House by the then Member for Leigh, now Mayor Andy Burnham. Those laws could be in force today but the Government chose not to introduce them. After six years, we instead have the Government’s draft Criminal Justice Bill, published this week. It mentions a duty of candour in clause 73, but only in the context of a code of conduct. That is an insult to all those who have been affected by state cover-ups and to the memory of the 97. It does not establish or define the duty in law. It provides no mechanism for compliance or enforcement.
Crucially, the Government do not appear to be introducing a statutory duty of candour on all public officials, as Hillsborough Law Now campaigners demand and as my party thankfully supports. We need a legal duty of candour on all public authorities and officials to tell the truth and proactively co-operate with official investigations and inquiries, bringing to an end the depressingly familiar pattern of cover-ups and concealment. Nothing less will do.
In the six years that we have waited, Parliament could also have passed the Public Advocate Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). Instead, the Government have proposed legislation, in the form of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, that is a pale imitation of what the Hillsborough families and survivors have spent years campaigning for. The Bill does not make the public advocate independent, has no powers or statutory duties and will only report on what the Secretary of State directs it to report on. What the Government have put forward in the King’s Speech is certainly not a Hillsborough law.
Amendment (c), which I have tabled to the Humble Address, calls for the right to food to be enshrined in law, and I thank the 35 hon. Members who have signed it. Hunger is a political choice made by this Government. At the moment in my great city, one in three people live in food insecurity, and there was nothing in the King’s Speech from the Government that would address the crisis my West Derby constituents face. We need systemic change. We need a right to food enshrined in UK law so that everyone, including all children, is legally protected from the scourge of hunger.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I associate myself completely with the remarks of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, but given the appalling slaughter and suffering in the middle east and the ongoing tragedy in Gaza, I have to do so. As the Member of Parliament who brought forward the motion to recognise the state of Palestine, which was approved in the House on 13 October 2014, I am often a target for those who do not believe in peace or a two-state solution.
In the context of the then Home Secretary’s sowing of division and hate, it is interesting that hon. Members have referred to Remembrance Sunday, when I was moved and overwhelmed by the words, some of which I would like to share, of the Roman Catholic priest Father Marc Lyden-Smith. He said that although Remembrance Sunday is a time when people wear red poppies—a well-established tradition—he had for the first time seen someone wearing both a red and a white poppy. When he asked why, their reply was, “Red is for remembrance and white is for peace.” I found that very thought-provoking. Our hope in remembrance is grounded in peace, a peace that so many have given their lives for. We must remember that peace looks forward to what we are trying to build: justice, harmony, wellbeing and the opportunity for all to flourish.
The most powerful part of Father Lyden-Smith’s sermon was towards the end, when he reminded us that
“Jesus said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’. He did not say: ‘Blessed are those who won the war, those who had sufficient resources and advanced weaponry to crush their enemies’. He said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’—those who work to build a world of peace. We can all be peacemakers.”
We can all work towards bringing about peace internationally. We should let today be a wake-up call for us all, on both sides of the House, to work for peace and, when we pray every morning before the session starts, to work for reconciliation, understanding and harmony. That begins in this House, in our communities, in our homes, in our families, in our friendship groups and especially in our hearts.
Today, I will vote for a ceasefire. I will vote for peace. I will vote for a state of Israel and a state of Palestine to live side by side in peaceful coexistence. The horrors, death and destruction that we witness daily on our TV screens are a breeding ground for hate; but if we are ever to secure peace, and a lasting peace, we cannot be driven by hate. I vote for a ceasefire and I call on all hon. Members, but particularly the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to use their platforms and positions of authority not only to secure humanitarian aid amid the horrors we see in Gaza and have witnessed in Israel, but to work every day towards a lasting peace and the safety and the security that all people in Israel and Palestine deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will call the Front Benchers for the wind-ups no later than 6.40 pm.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
With a sense of camaraderie, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) on his maiden speech. Maybe I can go further in extending the hand of friendship by helping him through the Aye Lobby this evening if he wishes to join us in voting for a ceasefire—as the Scottish Labour party in Holyrood appears to be saying it will do next week.
I was not going to get into this, but the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has prompted me to do so. He seemed to suggest that the SNP’s tabling an amendment on the principled position that we have taken at every stage, every step of the way, since the attack in Gaza on 7 October is somehow a political game. That is an utterly bizarre suggestion. We have been absolutely open. Our amendment was tabled last Wednesday—a week ago—and published last Thursday. You will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for suggesting that if anyone were playing political games, it would be those who lodged an amendment 12 minutes before the deadline last night.
I also thank the hon. Member for Slough for confirming what many of us have suspected: the reason the Labour party often does not vote for SNP motions is simply that they are SNP motions. That is deeply unfortunate. I invited Labour Members to look in Hansard at the countless times the SNP has voted with Labour on Opposition day motions. We will go through the Lobby and vote for positions that we agree with. If that is what he feels he needs to say and do to justify the position to himself, that is matter for him, but we put forward a principled position tonight in our amendment (h), which I am delighted to sponsor and support, particularly given that countless people in Midlothian have emailed to ask me to do so.
Let me touch a little on today’s topic. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am trustee of White Ribbon Scotland. When we—particularly us men—get the chance in debates to stand up and call on all men to do what we can to tackle the growing misogyny across society, it is important that we take that chance, using our positions and platform to call it out where we see it. Misogyny is entirely unacceptable and more of us need to say so, because it is happening far too much. Far too often people stand by and say, “But he’s a good guy, really.” That is simply not good enough. More needs to be done, so I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing legislation, which I will watch closely as it progresses.
The King’s Speech could have done much more, It could have offered much more to help constituents in Midlothian and across our nations. However, for all the challenges we face, they are nothing compared with that faced by those in Gaza tonight, so I call on everyone who wants to see an end to that conflict to join us in voting for a ceasefire.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
After 13 years of Tory austerity, what a thin King’s Speech it was from a Government who are out of touch and out of ideas, and hopefully soon out of office. They promise change by wheeling out the Prime Minister who ran off after he accidentally bequeathed us Brexit. Then there is the ex-Home Secretary, who is so fixated by the next Tory leadership race that she forgot her function of keeping the streets safe. She made them less safe by stoking unrest and fear, and encouraging a right-wing mob on to our streets—kudos to Sir Mark Rowley and the Met for standing up to the meddling.
Crime and antisocial behaviour need neighbourhood policing, but this gimmicky Government still have not restored to 2010 levels the officers they cut. Hate crime should not be on our streets, but sadly, events far off have triggered Islamophobic and antisemitic events nationally and even locally in the past month. I was alarmed by reprehensible individuals hooting horns and provocatively waving flags in Acton on 7 October, the day of the worst atrocity in Israel’s history. Since then, we have shockingly also seen red paint daubed on two mosques, three times between them, and on a Syrian café. That is disgraceful.
With winter approaching, there should not be street homelessness and rough sleeping in one of the richest countries on earth in 2023. That is also disgraceful, as is the ex-Home Secretary calling it a “lifestyle choice”. Reclaiming the streets also means an end to the grisly roll-call: Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena, who were only walking home. However, my last example is from the streets of Gaza, which have dominated MPs’ inboxes and filled our TV screens with desperation, death and destruction. I have heard it at first hand from a man who came to see me, whose brother had lived in Ealing and trained as a surgeon at Guy’s before returning to Gaza with his expertise. He has not moved from Al-Shifa Hospital since the start of the war. That hospital is now a household name, surrounded by tanks and with no food, water or power.
Long before Hamas’s despicable slaughter on 7 October started this cycle of violence, the new Foreign Secretary called Gaza an open-air “prison camp” that is unsustainable. Those words are now truer than ever, so I back Labour’s amendment tonight demanding both the end of violence and a two-state solution, stressing the importance of international law, and condemning Hamas, illegal settlements and west bank violence. I have also put my name to amendment (b), which asks for some of the same stuff, including the release of hostages—who themselves are at risk from 20 hours a day of incessant bombardment—but also calls for the end of the siege of Gaza, condemns collective punishment, and urges the Government to press for a negotiated ceasefire that is binding on all sides, not a surrender. All wars end in ceasefire eventually. We cannot continue at the rate we are seeing, with lost lives and 50% of buildings in Gaza demolished; it is only a month in.
Even The Sun called this a “damp squib” of a King’s Speech, from a party for whom it truly feels like the end of days. To paraphrase the Spice Girls, what we want—what we really, really want—and what this country needs is a general election now. Bring it on!
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
It would be remiss of me not to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) on a fantastic maiden speech. I remember saying in mine, which feels like 1,000 years ago, that I admired his integrity and intelligence. I think those values shone through in his speech, and will shine through in his conduct in this place.
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on the King’s Speech for the first time as the Member of Parliament for Selby and Ainsty, but I must say that I am a little disappointed. I was sent to this place to hold this Government to account—to scrutinise their agenda and their concrete plans for government—but this King’s Speech has revealed that there is scarcely a plan at all. Instead, the Conservative party has resigned itself to drift rudderless toward the next election, shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic while working people in communities such as mine suffer the consequences of 13 years of decline. Nowhere is that more apparent than on crime: the so-called party of law and order has sleepwalked into a crisis where 90% of crimes go unsolved and a criminal on the street is half as likely to be caught today than under the last Labour Government. The Conservative legacy on crime is one of damaging decline and collapsing confidence, and communities such as Sherburn in Elmet in my constituency are paying the price.
Sherburn is a bustling and dynamic place with a bright future. It has grown from a village to a town, with its population expanding by around 2,000 people in the past 10 years, but with that growth comes worry about crime and a fear that the hard-working staff at North Yorkshire police do not have sufficient resources to address these issues. In my recent election campaign, the Conservatives had the gall to celebrate how 251 more police officers were now on the streets of North Yorkshire, asking us to be grateful while seemingly oblivious to the fact that those officers were merely replacing the ones we have lost from our streets since the Conservatives took power in 2010, as well as those who have been forced to leave the profession they love due to overwork, anxiety and stress.
It is plain to those local residents in Sherburn who feel threatened by burglary and whose streets are made unsafe by antisocial behaviour that this Government are dangerously out of their depth, and are unwilling to use opportunities such as the King’s Speech to get a grip on spiralling crime. His Majesty’s speech could have provided what everyone in my constituency knows we need, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) outlined so ably: a fundamental reset for our police services and criminal justice system. Under Labour’s plans to tackle crime, we would see 13,000 more officers and PCSOs on our streets, fast-tracked detective recruitment and a return to proper neighbourhood policing with guaranteed neighbourhood patrols, as well as new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour in our town centres. Instead, it is all too clear that this Government are unprepared to take the important decisions necessary to solve the crisis in which they have placed us. My hon. Friends and I will do all we can to push them to go further until a general election allows us to deliver the fresh start that communities such as mine so desperately need.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Some 1,400 Israelis have been killed and more than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, around half of them children killed by the Israeli bombs and missiles targeting homes, schools, hospitals, refugee camps, mosques and churches, while almost 3,000 are missing presumed dead under the rubble. Those totals will be higher now than they were when we started this King’s Speech debate.
The World Health Organisation has noted that the brunt of the horrific assault is being borne by women and children, with well over 400 children killed every day and countless more maimed, suffering lifelong psychological trauma or trapped under rubble. More children have been killed in Gaza during the last three weeks than the total killed in conflicts around the world in every year since 2019. Of those killed, two thirds are women and children. Women and children are disproportionately impacted by this violence. Densely populated refugee camps in Gaza are being bombed, leaving dead and wounded children with no surviving family. I am left comforting too many of my own constituents in Leicester East who have lost a huge number of family members, with their in-laws wiped out entirely.
As we speak, Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa, has been surrounded, stormed and occupied by Israeli forces, trapping hundreds of medics, patients and civilians inside without access to vital supplies, with even food and water running out. Gaza’s hospitals are out of anaesthetic and many are out of fuel. Children and others are undergoing surgery for horrific trauma with no pain relief. Premature babies in neonatal care are dying without access to oxygen, and more generally, there are now reports of civilians dying from hunger and starvation, with a lack of food, water and hygiene.
Collective punishment is a war crime and so is forcible transfer, yet the people of Gaza are being driven from their land into the Sinai Egyptian desert. These are war crimes, and the urgency of the situation, the gravity of the crimes and basic human decency demand that plain language is used. To our shame, the Government, the Prime Minister and the Leader of His Majesty’s official Opposition are refusing to acknowledge this. Do they not see Palestinians as humans? Do they not see the burnt out ashes of a barely recognisable human body or the tiny hand of a baby covered in debris reaching out from the rubble? Do Palestinian lives not matter?
We are seeing death by war crimes in plain sight. Every day of delay means more lives are lost, and more women and children are killed by the indiscriminate massacre and barbarism of Israeli bombs. The international human rights community and international non-governmental organisations are united in their demand for a full and immediate ceasefire. The United Nations and its children’s and relief agencies, the World Health Organisation, international and Israeli human rights groups, and the millions of ordinary citizens of the UK and other countries who have taken to the streets each week are all demanding a ceasefire. Our humanity in this House demands that we call for a ceasefire.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you will know, this has been an extraordinarily difficult day for many Members in this House, but for me this is the most difficult day I have had to endure in my parliamentary career. We are now over a month on from the atrocious attacks by Hamas on 7 October, and we were all right to utterly condemn those attacks. But ahead of the votes that we are going to take in a moment, I wanted to let the House know that today I lost my first family member. The reason why this is important is that I have spoken about how they are in a church in Gaza City, and they did not, I am afraid, die from a bomb; instead they died perhaps from lack of food, perhaps from dehydration. Their health deteriorated in the last week, and they could not get to the hospital they needed.
Today I wanted to vote for peace. I wanted to vote for a two-state solution, because that is the only way that these horrors will never be seen again. I wanted to vote for getting Hamas out of Gaza, and for those reasons I wanted to vote for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, so that families like mine, but also families in Israel, do not have to endure this anymore. I urge colleagues from all sides to bear in mind that this is more than just party politics right now. I have been so disappointed by language I have heard today, and the Prime Minister earlier suggesting that we were not on the side of Israel—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Deepest condolences from the House, but this is clearly not a matter for the Chair. We will let the comments that you have made stand. Thank you—[Interruption.] No, please, resume your seat. This is not a matter for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, please resume your seat. We have expressed our deepest condolences, but this is not a matter for the Chair, and therefore not a legitimate point of order during this debate.
It is time for the Front Bench contributions. I call Mr David Lammy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The whole House will want to send their deepest condolences to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) after what we have just heard.
This has been a strong and powerful debate on the King’s Speech, and all hon. Members, despite the most challenging and difficult circumstances in the middle east, feel very grateful for the depth and quality of the contributions. We also heard the most outstanding maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks). It was thoughtful, humorous and full of lived experience and fantastic Scottish history. I am sure that his career in this House will be very successful.
We had a lot of contributions about crime of course, given the nature of the debate, and it was good to hear from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). He was right to remind us about the cost of imprisonment and that every prisoner costs £47,000, and about the importance of the Government adopting a Labour position on shorter sentences. I was grateful to hear the Secretary of State moving in a Labour direction and disagreeing on this occasion with his colleague, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) who is not in his place at the moment —[Interruption.] Forgive me, he is.
We also heard from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who raised spiking as a growing issue in our country, along with sexual exploitation, as well as the need to move forward with a statutory description. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) about the long campaign for justice and a Hillsborough law, and about how painful it was, and will be for many people, that, despite the report of Bishop Jones, that measure did not find its way into the King’s Speech two and a half years later. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) raised policing in Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke about the horrible scourge of knife crime, and the failure to ban Rambo and zombie knives. We are still waiting.
Let me turn to the amendments and the horrors of war that I know every Member of this House and so many of our constituents are all focused on tonight. I will start with a meeting I held two weeks ago in Cairo with the Egyptian Foreign Minister. He reminded me that it has been almost exactly half a century since Egypt and Israel were at the height of the Yom Kippur war—a 25-year pattern of conflict that some feared would never end. There were devastating losses in the Sinai and whole armies facing encirclement by the Suez canal. Few expected the narrow diplomatic openings to lead to lasting peace, but diplomats seized those narrow openings.
Then, in 1977, Sadat came to Jerusalem, setting the two countries on a path to a peace that has held ever since. Minister Shoukry reminded me of that. Although it may seem impossible in the toxic fog of war, peace is always possible in the end, so 39 days since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas, I ask the House to remember that peace is never simple, and never won easily.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Much of the language is about a ceasefire. The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Save the Children, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, the UN Secretary General and several EU Prime Ministers have all called for a proper ceasefire. Is it not time that Labour moved its position and actually used that word “ceasefire”—a proper one to let humanitarian aid in?
Mr Lammy
I will turn to those issues shortly. Everyone in this House wants the fighting to end. The central debate is about the steps to bring that about, and there is a discussion across this place among Members, all of whom want peace and all of whom want to see the loss of life come to an end. [Interruption.] I respect the hon. Member’s position, and I will come to that in a moment.
Peace is never won easily; peace is possible because of diplomacy, because of compromise and because of negotiation. It is our duty in this House to support all the necessary and practical steps to get us there.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I think we all understand that there have to be steps towards an eventual conclusion, and we all want to see the fighting stop. The Labour amendment calls for a “cessation of fighting”, which presumably means a cessation of firing. What is the difference between a cessation of firing and a ceasefire?
Mr Lammy
I have to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I direct him to the statement from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which clearly sets out five or six steps and five or six different types of occasion where arms are laid down. Some are purely for humanitarian reasons. Others are because some negotiation has begun or some political dialogue is possible. The debate is about how we get to the end, which is that arms are laid down for a lasting reason and the political process—in the end, this will surely end with a political process—can properly begin.
Florence Eshalomi
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that getting to peace is the ultimate goal for all of us. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I have received so much communication from my constituents. There is a clear consensus from the general public that a ceasefire is one of the key ways we can get this peace. Does he not agree that we should be working towards that urgently?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Lammy
I will just respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). She is of course right that all of us want to see a ceasefire and the laying down of arms. She will have seen also the statement from Hamas just a few days ago that they intend to continue and continue and continue. It is hard to see how a ceasefire can come about if Hamas are not prepared to stop the firing of rockets into Israel, and if they are not prepared to lay down their arms and set those hostages free. That, I think, is at the heart of the nature of the discussion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I would like to advise David Lammy that I will be calling Chris Philp at 6.51 pm.
Margaret Beckett
With apologies, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who raised the question of what the difference is between use of the word “ceasefire” and an end to violence, that I fear there is a most unfortunate difference, and that is why I never use the word “ceasefire” and will not be voting for a motion that includes it? That is because, tragically, to some people, calling for a ceasefire means that Israel should stop fighting but not that anybody else should—and that is not a point of view that I could support. I wholeheartedly support the excellent amendment (r) tabled by Labour Front Benchers.
Mr Lammy
Few of us in this House have the experience of my right hon. Friend. She knows that it is quiet, hard diplomacy that will bring about an end to the loss of life. She knows that we need to rapidly get to a longer pause, and she knows that there is a legitimate debate in this House but that the Labour motion deals with the issues at hand today, not next week or the week afterwards. Let us see where we get to.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Let me join the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in expressing the whole House’s condolences to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the tragedy that her family have suffered today.
It is a huge pleasure to close the final debate on the first King’s Speech. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) on his excellent maiden speech. Anyone who takes a seat off the SNP has my fervent good wishes. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That is clearly not a universally popular view.
It is the first duty of the state to secure the safety and security of its citizens. That is why the Government have delivered record ever police numbers across England and Wales, as my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) referenced. We have 3,500 more police officers than we have ever had before at any time in history, and those record numbers are delivering results. According to the crime survey, overall crime, measured like for like, is 54% lower now than it was in 2010. That is to say that the Labour Government in which the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), sat presided over crime levels that were double those that prevail today. Violence is down by 52%, burglary is down by 57% and vehicle crime is down by 39%.
The subject of the debate includes fighting violence against women and girls: a topic that I am sure the whole House can get behind. I am proud that in the last 13 years the Government have: legislated to criminalise stalking in 2012; passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; criminalised coercive and controlling behaviour; created a non-fatal strangulation offence; and outlawed upskirting and revenge porn. The previous Labour Government failed to do all those things during their 13 years in office.
There is more to do. The conviction rates for rape and serious sexual offences need to be higher. I am glad that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) acknowledged that Operation Soteria is making progress, with police referrals in the quarter to June up by 206% compared with 2019, Crown Prosecution Service charges up by 145% and Crown court receipts up by 171%. There is a lot more to do, but that is all heading rapidly in the right direction.
Some specific questions arose, which, for the sake of clarity, I would like to answer. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is in her place, asked about measures to ban zombie knives and machetes. Those require secondary legislation, and I can confirm that the Government will bring forward the relevant statutory instruments in the very near future, in addition to the measures announced in the King’s Speech to double the sentence for supplying a knife to an under-18 and to double the sentence for possessing a knife with intent to cause harm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) mentioned antisocial behaviour; come next April, every single police force in England and Wales will have funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols. Where they have been trialled, they have almost immediately reduced antisocial behaviour by around 30%. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about the Government’s response to Hillsborough, which they and many Members of Parliament take very seriously. I can confirm that the Government are planning to offer their full reply to Bishop James Jones’s report on 6 December. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and others will be briefed in advance if they wish to be. The duty of candour in policing will be introduced in clause 73 of the Criminal Justice Bill.
On Gaza, which many Members have spoken about, let us keep in mind that 1,400 innocent civilians were deliberately targeted and slaughtered by terrorists, and over 200 people remain held hostage. As the Prime Minister has set out repeatedly, this Government support humanitarian pauses to ensure that aid can get to civilians in Gaza, given the difficult circumstances. This Government have dramatically increased humanitarian aid, having provided £30 million-worth, and 51 tonnes have been sent in already. Of course, much more is required.
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I must finish up.
We are also working actively with international partners, including President Sisi of Egypt, to make sure the Rafah border crossing, which I have visited, is opened more to allow critical aid in. In order to ensure that civilians in Gaza are protected, our Government are actively engaging with the Government of Israel to ensure that they obey international law and redouble their efforts to protect civilians in Gaza. That is the humane and civilised thing to do, and this Government will continue to call for that.
However, a ceasefire with Hamas in place cannot be just. Hamas have said that they intend to destroy Israel, and that they would once again perpetrate atrocities like those committed on 7 October. They continue to hold hostages, including children and British citizens, and they continue to fire rockets into Israel. To ask Israel to cease firing unilaterally would not be fair or just. In order to have a just peace and a lasting, permanent ceasefire, we need a two-state solution with a sovereign and recognised Palestinian state on the west bank and in Gaza, guaranteeing their security and the security of Israel alike. All of us in this House and beyond should redouble our efforts to bring about that two- state solution, and to bring about the peace we saw in the aftermath of the Oslo accords, passed in 1993. That shows there is a path—it is difficult but it can be trodden. Only with a just and lasting peace can we see a just and lasting ceasefire.
I commend the King’s Speech and the Government’s legislative programme to the House. It will take this country forward and it deserves the support of the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Energy bills support
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Thousands of people desperately worried about paying their energy bills will not get the support from this Government that they got last year. I am on the record as being critical of that, and of energy suppliers for profiting from human misery. However, whether because I believe in credit where it is due or simply because I want to give people the best possible chance of surviving financially, I want to highlight that many energy suppliers can and do help. To give one example, profits from Scottish Gas are used to fund grants of up to £1,500 to help to pay off energy bill debts, and that is not limited to its customers. The trouble is that people do not know what support is out there, and that information has to get to those who need it the most.
The petitioners request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to publish accessible information on support available from all energy companies so that those who are struggling financially maximise their chances of surviving the cost of living crisis.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that whilst the Energy Cap has decreased, many people are still experiencing extreme difficulty paying energy bills for a number of reasons including the lack of a UK Government Energy Bill Support Scheme and the increased financial pressure from the cost of living generally; notes that whilst there is widespread, legitimate criticism of energy companies many are providing some financial support to consumers in such circumstances but this is not widely known.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to publish accessible information on support available from all energy companies so that those who are struggling financially maximise their chances of surviving the cost of living crisis.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002875]
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) (No. 2) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1061).
I am very grateful to see you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. As everyone here knows, the Government are committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and to seeing the return of locally elected, accountable government in Northern Ireland. However, in the continued absence of a devolved Government, Ministers are determined to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that public appointments are made and public confidence is maintained until the Executive is restored. That is why we brought forward primary legislation in December last year, which among other things allowed us to make urgent public appointments. We did that for two bodies initially, and then in July we brought forward a further measure to add 12 offices to the list.
Today, unfortunately, the Executive have still not returned. Therefore, following a request from the Executive Office and a further request from the Department of Justice in relation to senior Police Service of Northern Ireland appointments, a second statutory instrument was brought forward, which includes a further list of specified offices that have been identified by the Executive Office as urgent and critical.
This instrument adds to the list in section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, enabling the Secretary of State to exercise Northern Ireland Ministers’ appointment functions in relation to these offices and will allow for appointments to be made to the relevant bodies, continuing to safeguard the quality and delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. These are important offices, and the exercise of appointment functions in the coming months is critical for the continuation of good governance in Northern Ireland.
Before I sit down, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, who finishes his duties as the Department’s Whip today? He has done a superb job for us with great diligence and skill. It is a testament to his abilities that I have not rebelled once since he became my Whip. I note that I am surrounded today by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak, for Workington and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who all join us from the Whips Office—I cannot think what they are worried about.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham. I join the Minister in looking forward to the time when the Assembly is back up and running and we do not need to meet to agree these measures. I am grateful for his explanation of the regulations. As he will know, the Opposition support them as a way of ensuring the continuation of sound governance across Northern Ireland in the absence of a sitting Executive, which is what the people of Northern Ireland need. For that reason, we will not oppose them.
I note the urgency of these regulations under section 6 of the 2022 Act, given the current vacancies in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the fact that the appointments in the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment will expire shortly, meaning that their boards will no longer be quorate. I hope that the appointments to the Housing Executive, Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, Sports Council for Northern Ireland and Police Service of Northern Ireland will provide increased social and economic confidence to local people across Northern Ireland.
Given that the instrument covers the Police Service of Northern Ireland, I want to congratulate Jon Boutcher on his recent appointment as Chief Constable and I wish him the best. I thank the Minister for his co-operation and look forward to future visits to Northern Ireland, when I will talk about the effects of these instruments on the ground. I hope that, sooner rather than later, a time will come when these regulations are no longer necessary and we see a functioning Stormont.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am conscious that we have been in this room for less than five minutes, which means there is obviously consent on this statutory instrument. However, I want to ask the Minister, who I know will be all over this issue like a rash, about some of its practical implications.
The first is in relation to the appointments that it was clearly asked should be added to the list. Is the Minister able—either now or in writing—to give details of whether those appointments could be made swiftly because somebody has already been approved to take up a vacated position? If not, is there a timeframe, either in this legislation or in Northern Ireland, within which we are trying to fill all these positions, considering the importance of getting them up and running as quickly as possible? If the Minister is able to give me any information on that, I would be extremely grateful.
Mr Baker
I join the hon. Member for Putney in congratulating Jon Boutcher. Of course, the need to make his appointment was one reason why we laid this instrument as early as we did, and I am grateful to her for understanding that. That very much speaks to the point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury made about progress. In relation to the Chief Constable, we have now made that appointment.
I have a complete list of appointments here, but I suspect it would take me about 10 to 15 minutes to go through each of them. There is a range: on the one hand, we have already made an appointment, with Jon Boutcher; with other appointments, the process is in progress. Of course, this is all subject to the normal process for appointments: we have taken the power of Northern Ireland Ministers to make these appointments; we have not diverted at all from the normal process otherwise. For some of these appointments, the process will be taking place; for others, it is still to take place. With the Committee’s assent, I will write to my hon. and learned Friend, rather than taking 10 to 15 minutes now, as there seems to be general assent. I will gladly set everything out for him.
To finish, having only been here for five minutes, it is probably not going too far to say that, before I was appointed to the Government, I gave a keynote speech for the Hansard Society, launching its review of delegated legislation. It is a common problem that legislation comes forward to such Committees and is dealt with swiftly, precisely because it is uncontroversial and enjoys broad assent, as this instrument does. My hon. and learned Friend is right to observe that, in a sense, this is not the way to handle a straightforward matter. I would commend to everybody—including the hon. Member for Putney, if she is interested—that Hansard Society review of delegated legislation. It is important that all Governments are able to deal with delegated legislation effectively and efficiently and without too much scrutiny when it is not necessary or, on the other hand, too little when more might be of benefit.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On the contrary, as the Minister will recall, the late and sainted Eric Forth would always point out to us that it is the uncontroversial legislation that goes through uncontested that leads to the greatest lapses in our legislative duty.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He and I have a long history together on such matters, perhaps in more controversial circumstances. The Committee will hopefully agree with me that the business before us—adding to the list of appointments we can make in the absence of Northern Ireland Executive Ministers—is uncontroversial and is necessary for the continued functioning of government in Northern Ireland. I hope the Committee will join me in approving these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 990).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Elliott. This is a relatively modest instrument, which was laid before the House on 11 September 2023. As all hon. Members will appreciate, the hospitality sector continues to face significant economic headwinds in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic. In recognition of that, the regulations will ensure that the Government continue to support such businesses by extending the temporary provisions set out in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for a further 18 months.
I will begin by providing hon. Members will a bit of background. The Licensing Act 2003 enables licences to be granted to sell alcohol for consumption on site or off site, or both. In the event that a business obtains an on-sales-only licence and subsequently wishes to also do off-sales, the business is required to make an additional application to the licensing authority for a variation that would add off-sales to its licence.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very supportive of the regulations and wish they were being made permanent, instead of us having to come back here in 18 months. Does the Minister agree that one of the big problems with people going back and seeking waivers in their licence is that many licensing authorities incorrectly treat it as a bartering game? They will say, “If you want to be able to do off-sales, what else are you going to give us? Will you shut a bit early or have extra restrictions?” That kind of bartering game is not good for business, and I hope she will make it clear from the Front Bench that it is unacceptable when local authorities do that.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that. I was not aware of it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am happy to write to the Minister with some examples.
Laura Farris
I would be grateful if he did so. I can certainly discuss it with my ministerial colleagues, because it sounds like something that might warrant a response.
In response to the covid pandemic, the Business and Planning Act 2020 included a temporary provision that automatically entitled holders of licences that covered on-sales to make off-sales without any need to amend their licences, saving them time and money at a desperate moment. That provision meant that pubs and restaurants could make alcohol on-sales, and that pavement licences were provided for any outdoor facilities they had. This was facilitated by a parallel but independent easement to pavement licensing, which created a temporary streamlined process. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 made the change to pavement licensing permanent.
It is believed that the off-sales provision has benefited at least 30,000 licensed premises in England and Wales that previously did not have an off-sales licence. The provision was due to expire at the end of September 2023, but given the clear benefits that it brings to businesses, it has been extended until 31 March 2025. This ensures that businesses will be able to continue to benefit from the provisions for a further 18 months.
Let me make it clear that although the immediate covid-19 crisis has passed, the residual effects continue to have significant impacts, particularly in the hospitality sector, which was acutely affected, and many businesses continue to manage high levels of debt. It is believed that the regulations are an appropriate mitigation to help businesses with the residual effects of covid-19.
During the next 18 months, the Government will explore the creation of a unified pavement licence that includes the consumption and sale of alcohol in outside pavement areas. We want to reduce the administrative burden faced by cafés, pubs and restaurants, which currently have to apply for multiple consents from their council, and I reassure hon. Members that that work is already under way.
I would like to pre-empt a concern that may be raised by making it clear that the Government have consulted the National Police Chiefs’ Council about the impact of extending the temporary off-sales permission. The view of the police is that the extension of off-sales licences has not caused any clearly identifiable increase in crime and disorder. As Members may know, another regulatory easement set out in the BPA temporarily increased the annual number of temporary event notices that licensed premises could have from 15 to 20 and increased the maximum number of days on which temporary events could be held from 21 to 26 days a year. For the avoidance of doubt, that easement will not be extended. It was underutilised, and it is not necessary to extend this provision, so it will lapse on 31 December.
I am confident that the measures in this statutory instrument will continue to benefit a wide range of businesses, including pubs and restaurants, and for that reason, I hope that it will receive the Committee’s support. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I welcome the Minister to her position. I know that she will bring her characteristic thoughtfulness to her work. The Home Department and the shadow Home Office team have been known to occasionally disagree, but I am sure we can disagree well when we do so.
The Opposition do not intend to stand in the way of this instrument, so I will keep my remarks brief. We support it, and we support efforts to assist the hospitality sector through the aftermath of the pandemic, the effects of which, as the Minister said, are still being felt. The hospitality industry in particular is hampered by the cost of living crisis at the moment, as disposable incomes are pared back, so the more support we can give, the better.
This is a reasonable accommodation to be made for business, and it strikes an appropriate balance between business and the community, but I hope this is the last time we extend these provisions in this way. It was heartening to see in the explanatory notes that there is a proper new unified licensing regime coming. That needs to be drafted, consulted on and put before Parliament, so that we can do our best by our constituents and perhaps iron out the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown raised and those that came out of the consultation.
I hope the Minister will expand on the commitment she has made. As I say, it is heartening to hear that this work is under way. The extension in this instrument lasts until March 2025, which takes us past the latest possible date for a general election. I would welcome some clarity as to whether we can expect the new regime in this parliamentary Session, before a general election, so that we do not have to do this again in March 2025 on an emergency basis, because we do not yet have a new regime to discuss.
There are concerns about the provisions in this legislation that need to be addressed by a unified regime. As the noble Lord Coaker said when the instrument was debated in the other place, the explanatory memorandum shows that the consultation responses were not, it is safe to say, supportive of this measure. There were 174 responses, which is not a huge number, but two thirds of those who replied wanted to return to the pre-covid provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. Slightly less—63%—opposed making the provision relating to temporary event notices permanent, but as the Minister says, that will be discontinued, which is welcome. Given that it has not been used, it is right to turn that provision off.
The Government spokesperson in the other place said that the reason for the Government going against the consultation was that, broadly speaking, the support was from the industry, with the opposition mainly centred on local residents and licensing concerns, and that, having viewed the consultation results, the Government opted to give more weight to the industry and continue the easements. I hope the Minister will expand on that. We are sent here to make such judgments based on evidence and to weigh up a variety of factors, and it is reasonable to sometimes act against a consultation, especially when I suspect that many of these concerns could be better addressed through local action under the current regime, or certainly under a broader, unified regime. However, it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that that was the nature of those disagreements.
Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the National Police Chiefs’ Council, it would be helpful to know which representative bodies opposed and which supported this measure. I would be particularly interested to hear what the police and those who speak for local government said.
Another element of the consultation outcome related to crime and antisocial behaviour as a result of these easements. Happily, a majority—two thirds—of respondents said that they had not seen a change in crime and antisocial behaviour, but a significant minority of one third had. Again, I would be keen to hear from the Minister what assessment the Home Department has made of this, whether the impact of antisocial behaviour came up in those conversations with the National Police Chief’s Council, and what mitigations might be needed. We know that police forces and police officers are doing an amazing job all day, every day, and we would not want to make that harder, because we know that they are thinly stretched.
I have given the Minister a lot to address, and I hope she is able to do so. We will not oppose these measures, but it is time to move from this sticking plaster approach to a proper scheme that the public can buy into.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support the Minister and the Government’s initiatives to make sure that we balance supporting the hospitality sector through these difficult times against addressing concerns about antisocial behaviour and public order.
I also remind the Minister, when she has discussions about this back in the Department, that anything proposed to go on the pavement can have a detrimental impact on those with sight loss, visual impairment, and other types of disability that make accessing and getting around areas such as town centres difficult. I know that this is a cross-departmental issue, so will she please ensure that officials, civil servants and other Ministers also understand that these decisions can have an impact on wider society that might not always be beneficial? We want to make sure we can balance that for everybody in society.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his warm words. He raised three interesting points. First, he referred to the responses to the consultation. The breakdown shows that two thirds of respondents were opposed to making the arrangements permanent, while 35%, a third, were in favour. That breakdown was divided roughly between the licenced premises themselves, and residents, residents’ associations, and so on. I tend to concur with him that this seems to be a matter which could be resolved best by individual police forces, perhaps in conjunction with the National Police Chief’s Council.
On the long-term plan, I have already said that it is the Government’s intention that this will be made permanent in some form or another. The Home Office is already working on a permanent solution, in conjunction with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Although the regulations concern a separate issue, it is anticipated that the long-term solution will be worked through in the coming months and will carry over between Parliaments, irrespective of when a general election comes.
The shadow Minister was quite right to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour. Again, there is a tension here, because although we are united in wanting to help the hospitality sector, we must be cognisant of the potential increase in antisocial behaviour. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby for quite properly raising the impact of things like this on disabled members of the public, who, frankly, often end up the victims of unexpected obstacles, because people do not give proper, adequate thought to them. She has given me food for thought, which I will take back to the Home Office.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
On antisocial behaviour, sometimes the problem is that the police do not have the resources to manage legitimate crowds and groups of people leaving bars and venues, and therefore they object to licences being granted or extended. Clearly, that is unfair on the business owners, who might not be producing any more noise or disturbance for local residents, but the police fear, because of a decade of underfunding, that they are unable to pound the streets at night. Could advice be provided to police forces and local authorities to ensure we get the balance right? In our local authority, the police objected to a licence for Soho House because they said they were worried that the punters leaving at 2 o’clock in the morning might be an antisocial behaviour risk. I know Soho House members are creatives, but they are not usually known for their antisocial behaviour.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I disagree with him slightly, as we have increased police numbers by 20,000 since I was elected in 2019, and I do not think the common complaint of local police forces at the moment is that they are underfunded, but he alights on an important point with his example of Soho House. In whatever local authority or policing area, there will be distinct considerations. It is probably true that if the police are not embedded in any extension of licencing arrangements, there is a risk of antisocial behaviour, so the long-term solution must plainly be directed at that.
Overall, the reality is that the hospitality sector emerged from the pandemic with £10 billion-worth of covid-related debt, and every MP has heard directly about the pressure that has put on it. Sometimes, in the worst cases, it has led to closures, so I am very pleased that the Committee seems to be united in wanting to do everything it can to support this sector while we work to put a long-term solution in place. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Dormant Assets (Distribution of Money) (England) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Dormant Assets (Distribution of Money) (England) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to open the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
The dormant assets scheme is a world-leading example of how powerful and impactful partnerships between the public, private and civil society sectors can be. Money that was previously lying unused and forgotten is unlocked by the scheme for good causes, while consumers are protected and always able to claim back what they are owed.
Led by the financial services industry and backed by Government, the dormant assets scheme is underpinned by the voluntary participation of financial services firms. I put on the record my thanks to those responsible businesses, and in particular I express a warm welcome to Aviva and Legal & General as the first participants from the insurance and pensions sector. They are blazing a trail for others to follow, and I encourage all eligible firms to consider following in their footsteps.
In a little more than a decade, the dormant assets scheme has unlocked almost £1 billion to be spent across the United Kingdom. In England, that has helped scale up the social investment market tenfold: 5,000 organisations such as charities and social enterprises have the investment that they need to keep serving the communities and people who need it most.
Dormant assets have also enabled 22,000 young people from deprived and disadvantaged communities to find meaningful work. The scheme has supported the building of the world’s first youth employment toolkit, making clear the measures and interventions that really work to get young people into good jobs. It has supported financially excluded people with access to affordable credit. That has helped thousands of people when they really need it—people such as single mothers who needed to cover up-front nursery fees so that they could start a new job, or families living in appliance poverty who needed to afford a washing machine and basic furniture. Only last year, in my constituency, dormant assets funding provided 91 responsible and affordable loans worth more than £46,000 to financially vulnerable people.
Soon, the dormant assets scheme in England will be about putting decision-making power into the hands of communities to spend funding on what matters to them, in a way that works best for their area, through community wealth funds. Last year, thanks to the passage of the Dormant Assets Act 2022, the Government were able to give people and the scheme participants a say in how the English portion of the funding should be used. With more than 3,300 responses to the consultation, it is clear that the scheme enjoys significant public support.
The draft order makes good on the Government’s commitment that the scheme should support the four causes that people told us mean the most to them: youth, financial inclusion and education, social investment wholesalers, and community wealth funds. With those four causes, we can continue to make meaningful, long-term change across the country and provide support to those who need it most. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. This is my first time shadowing the Minister on behalf of the official Opposition, and I am glad that it gives me the opportunity to welcome the draft order, which enables community wealth funds to be added to the good causes named as beneficiaries of the dormant assets scheme in England.
As hon. Members know, the previous Labour Government introduced the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 and created the dormant assets scheme, a success of which we can be proud. The scheme enables funds from dormant bank and building society accounts to be made available to good causes, with English expenditure ringfenced, as the Minister said, to support initiatives focused on youth, financial inclusion and education, and social investment wholesalers. Since the 2008 Act came into force, more than £771 million has been allocated to those three causes in England.
It is important to recognise the four organisations that have distributed these funds and contributed to the scheme’s success: the Youth Futures Foundation, Fair4All Finance, Big Society Capital and Access, the Foundation for Social Investment. Between them, they have funded vital services, supporting young people and helping to break the barriers they face in accessing opportunities. They have offered practical help and support to people facing debt and financial exclusion—people who might otherwise have been forced to resort to loan sharks, other exploitative arrangements, or indeed gone without essential household items, such as the washing machines and similar items that the Minister referred to. Their work has included providing thousands of interest-free loans and, as has been said, they have supported the expansion of the social investment market tenfold to support a multitude of charities and social enterprises working in and with communities across the country, and so they are making a difference to the lives of people most in need. We want these organisations to be able to continue to carry out their important work at a time when we know the cost of living crisis is creating huge challenges both for our constituents and, indeed, for charities themselves. These sources of help and support are needed more than ever.
Last year, following on from the work of the independent Dormant Assets Commission, the Dormant Assets Act 2022 was passed with cross-party support, extending the scope of the original scheme to unlock additional assets and so provide further funding for good causes. Although the Government did not at that stage agree to add community wealth funds to the list of good causes that could be funded, it is really welcome that they listened to the strong arguments made for their inclusion and subsequently held a consultation. I am really pleased that, as the Minister said, the consultation received more than 3,300 responses and was supported by 71% of respondents. It is clear that there is very strong support for the use of dormant assets to support these funds targeted at communities that have low levels of civil society infrastructure and are in high need.
However, while we welcome the expansion of dormant assets and today’s order that enables these new funds to be distributed to a wider range of good causes, there are still a number of questions that I would like to raise with the Minister. We are, of course, conscious that dormant assets are not Government money; they can be reclaimed and it is therefore right and necessary that reserves are held to meet such reclaims. There remains a question about whether the level of funds held in reserve is the right one. What assurances can the Minister provide that the proportion of funds being held back is correct? How is this arrived at? How and when will it be subject to review?
I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify what work the Government are doing to broaden the scope of assets included in the scheme even further. The independent commission had recommended including unclaimed pension pots, but the Government have not done so. Please will he explain that decision? Are there other categories of assets that could be considered in the future? I have heard the suggestion that unclaimed balances on Oyster cards could be a potential source, and no doubt there are others. Could the Minister perhaps say a little on that?
The second set of questions I want to raise relate to the Government’s technical consultation on the design of community wealth funds and how it was undertaken. The first issue I would like to ask the Minister to address is the targeting of the funding. As he will know, the original conception of the community wealth funds was to provide long-term support and funding to invest in social infrastructure, focused on improving outcomes in left-behind neighbourhoods. That drew on the work done by Local Trust and others. That work used a community needs index to identify those areas with a lack of social or community infrastructure, and cross-referenced them with those areas facing high levels of deprivation, which were identified via the index of multiple deprivation.
That research identified 225 wards that were concentrated in housing estates most often on the periphery of towns and cities. However, in the technical consultation, the Government made clear their intention to use the community wealth fund to target communities in small towns of 20,000 residents or fewer. Local Trust has estimated that only 17 of the 225 left-behind neighbourhoods are in such small towns. Does the Minister accept that this risks the funds failing to meet the very places that most need this investment and that most stand to benefit from it? Is there not a danger that this change in focus will fail to provide accurate evidence on the effectiveness of the community wealth fund model, and that it may not provide the best value for money, and thus potentially undermine a second round of funding, or other further rounds?
Community wealth funds have the potential to boost and empower left-behind communities by giving them the resources to invest in the facilities and services that would have the most benefit locally and improve the lives of people who live there. The decision to target only small towns could mean that those left behind will stay there. The Minister knows that there is a perception that Government funding is too often allocated according to political considerations rather than on the basis of those places in greatest need. Does he understand the concern that this change in targeting has prompted? Can he tell me how the Government plan to target the left-behind neighbourhoods when many of them will not qualify for community wealth funds?
Finally, the Government had originally promised that there would be a three-month consultation period on the technical consultation. Given the significant changes between the version of the community wealth fund as originally conceived and the version in the technical consultation, surely providing adequate time for responses was particularly important, yet the Government allowed only four weeks. Can the Minister explain why the consultation period was cut short, and does he not share the concern that this may have impacted on the quantity and the quality of responses?
This order brings in welcome changes, but I hope the Minister agrees that it is important to maintain confidence and cross-party support for the dormant assets scheme.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I promise not to detain the Committee too long, but I want to make a couple of points. I would first like to thank the Minister for all the work he has done. He has engaged very thoroughly with Members—I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, and he has engaged very much with members of the APPG on development of a community wealth fund.
I also thank the Local Trust and the Community Wealth Fund Alliance for the work they have done to develop proposals around a community wealth fund, which is extremely important for communities identified as left behind. A number of those are in my constituency and others up and down the country. I also want to mention the point on targeting mentioned by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Nottingham South. While we obviously need to focus on smaller towns, it is important that we do not exclude the most deprived 10% of communities in the entire country. We need to make sure that they are included as well and that the definition is not too narrow. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and will ensure that, in developing the proposal and the scheme for the community wealth fund, communities like Blurton, Meir and Newstead in my constituency will continue to be eligible for the community wealth fund.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that even in affluent communities there are pockets of deprivation that need support across this country? Some of the worst affected places that are lacking in means are in those affluent communities.
Jack Brereton
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The original definition set out a population size of around 10,000 in order to identify those wards with the highest levels of deprivation. The deprivation in some wards in the most affluent parts of the country is such that they need this funding and that support. It is really important to focus more on areas with the highest deprivation.
Yes, we need to support smaller towns, including Longton and Fenton in my constituency, but we also need to make sure that the smaller, most deprived communities—the top 10% identified as the most left-behind wards in the entire country—do not miss out on this funding. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, and I am sure he will agree that it is important that we focus this funding into those areas where it is going to have the greatest impact and where it is needed most.
Stuart Andrew
It is a pleasure to conclude this debate. I am grateful for the contributions we have had. It was remiss of me right at the beginning not to welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham South to her position. I notice that she said she was glad to offer her support, and I look forward to that being the continual theme in everything that we do from here on in. I also pay tribute to those four organisations that she mentioned. They have worked incredibly hard to distribute the funding so far, and I want to put on record my thanks to them.
The hon. Lady raised a number of points. First, we have been looking at the ratio at which the reserving is monitored. The organisation is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and is therefore required to hold sufficient funds to support base reclaims, additional funds for stress events, and funds to operate the business over the lifetime of the balances. The Reclaim Fund Ltd board remains comfortable that the 40% rate is appropriate, given its legal obligations to customers. Obviously, we will ensure we are constantly reviewing that. On that reviewing of the reserving ratio, it is continually looking at the Financial Conduct Authority guidance to ensure it is meeting its obligations.
On the scheme expansion, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the opportunities that exist. Many of the dormant assets that are now transferring to the scheme will include things such as insurance and pensions, investment and wealth management, and security sectors. Section 19 of the Dormant Assets Act 2022 provides a way to bring additional assets classes into scope at a later date. Further work, however, needs to be done to identify these assets and to facilitate their inclusion. I share the hon. Lady’s ambition that we expand this fund as much as we can, so that we can maximise the opportunities.
I hear the points that have been made, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for his questions, too, and particularly for his thanks to the Local Trust and the Community Wealth Fund Alliance, which have been very good at articulating the opportunities. We want this to be targeted, and we want it to be working to support those deprived small towns of fewer than 20,000 residents experiencing a high level of deprivation or low social capital. But that is part of the consultation. Today, we are purely adding in a fourth cause, but I absolutely recognise the need to look through the results of that consultation. We really want to reach communities that need investment in social infrastructure, and many points have been made about the need to ensure that they are able to stand on their own two feet. That is equally important. I cannot pre-empt that at this stage, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Nottingham South that I have heard their points.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Review of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The Minister of State for the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Commonwealth and United Nations, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, has today made the following statement:
I am today announcing a review of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), an Executive non-departmental public body of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).
The WFD was established in 1992 and is dedicated to strengthening democracy around the world by delivering programmes, expertise and research. WFD mobilises UK and international expertise and works with parliaments, political parties, electoral bodies, civil society and local leaders, currently working in more than 30 countries and territories, to help them make their democracies fairer, more inclusive and more accountable, so they can respond to the problems that matter to people.
This review is part of the public bodies review programme, which delivers against the commitments made in the Declaration on Government Reform to increase the effectiveness of public bodies and departmental sponsorship. In 2022, all Departments were asked to prioritise their arm’s length bodies for review. The then Foreign Secretary decided that the WFD, which had last been reviewed in 2018, should undergo a review before the end of 2023-24.
This review will follow the Cabinet Office guidance on the undertaking of reviews of public bodies. It will assess the WFD’s efficacy, governance arrangements, accountability and efficiency. It will consider whether and how the WFD’s mandate could be delivered more effectively and efficiently, and provide robust and well-evidenced recommendations to the departmental sponsor team.
In conducting this review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders, including parliamentarians; political parties; staff, management and the board of governors at the WFD; FCDO teams in the UK and overseas; cross-Whitehall Departments; donors; and those engaged in WFD programmes.
I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed.
[HCWS36]
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd for development consent for the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park project, located in Flixborough, Scunthorpe.
Under section 107(1)(b) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the Examining Authority’s report, unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park project is 15 November 2023.
The Secretary of State has decided to set a new deadline of no later than 15 March 2024 for deciding this application to enable my Department to seek further information from interested parties and to ensure there is sufficient time to allow for consideration of that information.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to any decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS35]
HS2 Six-monthly Report to Parliament: November 2023
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Review of High Speed 2 (HS2) including programme update, benefits, local community impact and engagement, land and property, programme governance and a forward look. Phase Overall spend to date (£ billion) 2023 to 2024 budget (£ billion) 2023 to 2024 forecast (£ billion) Variance (£ billion) 1 3 24.6 5.8 6 -0.2 2a 1 0.2 0.1 0.1 2b Western Leg 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 HS2 East (West to East Midlands) and East Midlands to Leeds HS2 Eastern Leg (West Midlands to Leeds) 0.7 0 0 0 Total 27 6.2 6.3 0.0 1 The figures set out relate to the historic scope of the programme and have not been amended to reflect the Network North announcement. 2 The numbers set out in the tables have been rounded to aid legibility. Due to this, they do not always tally. All figures stated below are given in 2019 prices 3 Spend to date includes a £0.9 billion liability (provision) representing the Department’s obligation to purchase land and property. Oct 2020 report (£ billion) Mar 2021 report (£ billion) Oct 2021 report (£ billion) Mar 2022 report (£ billion) Oct 2022 report (£ billion) June 2023 report (rounded to billions) September 2023 report (rounded to billions) Total HS2 Ltd contingency drawdown and % used 0.3 (5%) 0.4 (7%) 0.8 (14%) 1.3 (23%) 1.5 (28%) 1.8 (33%) 2.6 (46%) Total HS2 Ltd contingency remaining 5.3 (95%) 5.2 (93%) 4.8 (86%) 4.3 (77%) 4.0 (72%) 3.7 (67%) 3.0 (54%) Oct 2020 Report (£ billion) Mar 2021 Report (£ billion) Oct 2021 Report (£ billion) Mar 2022 Report (£ billion) Oct 2022 Report (£ billion) June 2023 Report (£ billion) September 2023 Report (rounded to billions) Total Government-retained contingency drawdown and % used 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)4 0 (0%) Total Government-retained contingency remaining 4.3 (100%) 4.3 (100%) 4.3 (100%) 4.3 (100%) 4.3 (100%) 4.3 (100%) 4.3 (100%) 4 As highlighted in the October 2021 report, £0.015 billion has been allocated to enable Old Oak Common to increase the number of trains it serves before opening services to Euston station from 3 to 6 trains per hour but has not yet been drawn down from Government-retained contingency.
Overview
The Government announced a new plan, via the Network North Command Paper, to improve transport across Great Britain on 4 October. This directs spending away from future phases of HS2 towards local and regional transport schemes, while committing to the improved delivery of HS2 phase 1.
This is because the facts around HS2 have changed since its inception: costs have increased, delivery has been delayed and the pandemic has changed the travel patterns HS2 was originally designed to serve. Cumulatively, these factors have weakened the economic case. The Government have, therefore, made the difficult decision to not extend HS2 beyond Birmingham, while taking a radical new approach to Euston station.
Instead, the Government have announced a new plan for transport spending, as outlined in the Network North Command Paper. Through this, the Government intend to reallocate £36 billion (2023 prices) of funding earmarked for the HS2 programme to a range of other high priority transport schemes across the north, the midlands and Great Britain, investing in hundreds of projects in towns, cities and rural areas.
We will complete phase 1 of HS2 between London and the west midlands. There will be two branches: one to central Birmingham; and one to Handsacre, near Lichfield, meaning passengers will be able to travel on HS2 trains through to Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland, joining the west coast main line for the rest of their journeys. No decisions have been made on the train service that will run when HS2 is operational.
As is set out by the Network North Command Paper:
The Government’s view is that the best interests of our country are not served by progressing with further phases of the project, in the face of diminishing relative benefits and more pressing transport priorities elsewhere. So we will not proceed with phase 2a, 2b or HS2 East.
HS2 phase 2b western leg is now cancelled but some sections of the route are the same as those anticipated to be part of Northern Powerhouse Rail. As set out in the Network North Command Paper, the Government will take the time to consider next steps for the phase 2b legislation that has been reintroduced into Parliament and whether there is a way to repurpose that to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail. A further £12 billion (2023 prices), additional to the £36 billion, has been earmarked to better connect Manchester and Liverpool. This would allow the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail as previously planned, including high-speed lines. But we are working with local leaders to agree whether they wish to suggest other uses of this money to achieve the objective with that £12 billion.
We are going to scale back the project at Euston and adopt a new development-led approach to the Euston quarter which will deliver a station that works, is affordable and can be open and running trains as soon as possible. We will not provide design features we do not need and will instead deliver a six-platform station which can accommodate the trains we will run to Birmingham and onwards and which best supports regeneration of the local area. In this way we will attract private funding and unlock the wider land development opportunities the new station offers, while radically reducing its costs to the taxpayer.
The scope of phase 1 will now be reviewed to guarantee delivery of only that required for updating the reduced HS2 programme.
Delivery remains on track for the initial high-speed services between Old Oak Common in west London and Birmingham Curzon Street by 2029-2033.
Work on HS2 in Lichfield and the surrounding villages, including the connection to the west coast main line at Handsacre junction, will continue.
In the Department’s (DfT) accounting officer assessment of 4 October, the accounting officer concluded that continuing to build phase 1 resulted in an estimated benefit-cost ratio (BCR) above 1 in a range of scenarios taking into account sunk costs to date and the estimated remediation costs of not continuing, and based on an indicative timetable of eight trains per hour between Euston, Birmingham Curzon Street and the north-west. Work has begun on an updated business case for the revised programme. This will update the strategic case for HS2 in light of Network North and provide a full economic assessment following decisions being made on the HS2 train services running to and from Euston. These will be made in due course, taking advice from West Coast Partnership Development, HS2 Ltd and Network Rail, and will be subject to consultation. An updated phase 1 business case will be published in due course.
This report uses data provided by HS2 Ltd and covers the period between March 2023 and September 2023 inclusive. Unless stated, all figures are presented in 2019 prices. Data on benefits is taken from September 2023.
Programme update
Schedule
The forecast date for initial HS2 services between Birmingham Curzon Street and Old Oak Common remains within the range of 2029 to 2033.
An updated delivery-into-service range for services to Euston will be provided in due course.
Affordability
In my last report, I highlighted the cost pressures faced by HS2 and the work HS2 Ltd was undertaking to review the phase 1 estimate at completion (EAC). The HS2 Ltd board has now advised me that its updated EAC for phase 1 is £49 billion to £57 billion (2019 prices), the scope of which was the route from Euston to Birmingham and works north to Fradley and the Handsacre junction. This is a very significant upwards revision compared with HS2 Ltd’s previous projections and is a wide range in comparison to the scope of the remaining work.
HS2 Ltd has advised that cost increases on phase 1 since baseline 7.11 stem from a wide range of compounding issues including design performance, delivery productivity, consenting delays, and a difficult operating environment with covid and the Ukraine war affecting the supply chain. In particular, the cost of main work civils (MWCC) work has increased since notice to proceed, due to an interplay of these factors. The latest projection HS2 Ltd provided for MWCC is £21.8 billion to £23.4 billion (in 2019 prices), which represents a cost increase of £6.1 billion from baseline 7.1.
1 Aggregated costs as set out in the full business case which was approved at notice to proceed in 2020.
The Government disagree with the £49 billion to £57 billion figure for two reasons. First, it was drawn up by HS2 Ltd before it was notified of the decision to cancel phase 2. It reflects HS2 Ltd’s understanding of the project in September—that it would be proceeding to Manchester and the east midlands, and with more expansive plans for Euston. The scope and costs of phase 1 will now be reassessed following the decision not to proceed beyond the midlands, including the decision to adopt a development-led approach to Euston.
Secondly, DfT makes different assumptions on how much cost risk remains addressable, including different assessments of: how future risks could be actively mitigated; how revised incentives could change the trajectory on the costs of completing the civils and systems work; and the size and composition of HS2 Ltd’s own operating costs. As set out in the Network North Command Paper, for the historic phase 1 scope, DfT officials have, therefore, estimated a provisional range of £45 billion to £54 billion on the basis of the same data used by HS2 Ltd, but using different assumptions on how much remaining cost risk remains addressable.
I have asked the HS2 Ltd executive chair, Sir Jon Thompson, to update HS2 Ltd’s estimate to consider the revised scope of phase 1 and the cancellation of the wider scheme, reflecting reduced scope and the costs of any changes; to explain and evidence why the upwards revisions have been so significant and their causes; and to agree an EAC with Government by providing an action plan on how HS2 Ltd will deliver the revised scope at the lowest reasonable cost, detailing actions needed to support HS2 Ltd and its supply chain from the Government.
I will update Parliament once that revised estimate has been provided and new cost targets have been provided to HS2 Ltd, including clarity on any changes to the scope or the funding envelope. I propose to state this in both 2019 values (for comparison to the historic position) and in 2023 values (to show the cost in current terms and to reflect the recent period of high inflation).
As stated in the Network North Command Paper, the Government have increased their ambitions for the Euston redevelopment and have begun work to create a transformed “Euston Quarter” led by a new development corporation, or equivalent, and using private funding to deliver a station that works. Euston sits in an internationally significant commercial district close to a world-leading cluster of scientific, research and development institutions, providing a significant opportunity to leverage private sector investment and minimise up-front cost to the taxpayer. Government Ministers have undertaken substantial engagement with Euston stakeholders since the announcement, including through a meeting with the Euston Partnership board chaired by Peter, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, which brings together HS2 Ltd, Network Rail, Lendlease, Transport for London (TfL), the Greater London Authority (GLA), Camden Borough Council (CBC) and the West Coast Partnership. Going forward, the Department will consider a range of delivery models, financing mechanisms and the optimal scope, risk allocation and phasing of the comprehensive scheme. I will provide further updates to Parliament as this work progresses.
Delivery
Phase 1 is already well under way, with the project three years into its construction phase. There are currently 350 active construction sites between the west midlands and London.
Tunnel drives are making good progress across the route. In the Chilterns, the tunnel boring machines (TBMs) Florence and Cecilia have successfully reached the Little Missenden ventilation shaft; more than three quarters of their 10-mile drive beneath the Chilterns is now complete. Sushila and Caroline, the two TBMs creating the first section of tunnel that will make up the 8.4 mile Northolt tunnels between West Ruislip and Old Oak Common station, have completed the first mile of twin-bored tunnel in the capital. Since their launch in November 2022, the 2,000-tonne TBMs have each installed over 847 tunnel rings, made up of 5,929 concrete segments in total.
Overall, half the tunnel boring machines for the route have launched, one in six tunnel journeys—comprising more than 14 miles of new tunnels—have been completed, and 16,897 rings have been installed.
Stage 1 of the design and build contract for Birmingham Curzon Street was awarded to Mace Dragados Joint Venture in May 2021. An update on stage 2 is expected in the coming weeks.
At Old Oak Common, the excavation of the underground box that will house the HS2 station platforms is now over 50% complete. In line with the programme, groundworks for the conventional rail station which will accommodate eight platforms on the realigned Great Western main line and relief lines, commenced in October 2022.
A contract between HS2 Ltd and Network Rail has been confirmed for the delivery of the rail systems element of the GWML platforms. Both the Secretary of State and I visited Old Oak Common in August. I hosted the Deputy Mayor, TfL commissioner and rail industry representatives to discuss progress across the site. The progress made at Old Oak Common is crucial for realising the potential for the creation of jobs and provision of housing enabled by the station through the new transport connections provided, which the Government are working hard to achieve, together with the Mayor of London. To that end, I have created a taskforce including Transport for London and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) to consider and take forward action on this critical part of the programme. The first meeting of the Old Oak Taskforce took place on 31 October 2023.
The Department and HS2 Ltd have started working to bring the work on phase 2a to a stop in a safe and efficient way while ensuring value for money. There are a wide range of tasks, including wrapping up contracts and not progressing the design and delivery partner and main works civil framework contracts. Land will be remediated where early/enabling works had commenced, and where new habitats have been completed, a suitable long term management plan will be established to support our “no net loss of biodiversity” commitment.
On the HS2 Crewe-Manchester scheme, the Hybrid Bill Select Committee continued its work hearing petitions from people and communities affected by the Bill up until Parliament went into recess in September. The Committee produced its first report on 19 July setting out its views and responses to the issues raised by petitioners to that point, to which the Government responded in September. A second additional provision was also deposited in July 2023.
The Select Committee adjourned in October, pending further instruction from the House following the cancellation of the HS2 phase 2b western leg. The Bill has been carried over into the next parliamentary Session and we are currently considering its future as we look to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, or any alternative that local leaders may agree, as quickly as possible, as outlined in the Network North Command Paper.
The Network North Command Paper set out the Government’s policy to pivot away from high-speed rail interventions and focus spending on the transport infrastructure benefiting the local journeys that matter most to communities. While Network North cancelled the HS2 schemes north and east of Birmingham, it maintained and added to the other commitments in the integrated rail plan, including broadening the scope of Northern Powerhouse Rail. The existing Northern Powerhouse Rail commitments in the integrated rail plan continue to stand. The King’s Speech set out the Government’s intention to repurpose the HS2 phase 2b Bill to provide options to progress the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail. Work continues to deliver the other integrated rail plan schemes, and to develop the new schemes brought forward by the Network North Command Paper.
The Department is working with HS2 Ltd to stop development work on the phase 2b western leg that is no longer required in a safe and efficient way, while ensuring value for money. The Department is also considering repurposing the development work that is required to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail as outlined in the Network North Command Paper. The Network North Command Paper committed £12 billion to better connect Manchester to Liverpool. This would allow the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail as previously planned, including high-speed lines. As promised in Network North, we will work with local leaders to agree whether they wish to suggest other uses of this money to achieve the objectives within that cost envelope.
Following the cancellation of phase 2, a study will be established to consider connectivity in the midlands and connecting areas.
HS2 Ltd continues tendering for phase 1 rail systems packages, including track installation, overhead catenary and high-voltage power. HS2 Ltd has provided suppliers with scope clarifications to support them in submitting competitive bids. Bids previously submitted by the supply chain showed higher indirect costs and fees than estimated and are currently unaffordable. These pressures are recognised in the revised EAC range advised by HS2 Ltd. HS2 Ltd continues to develop its management capability for the rail systems alliance, which is responsible for delivering these systems packages in a collaborative model.
Benefits
Growth and opportunities for local communities
HS2 between London and Birmingham will continue to act as a catalyst for local investment and regeneration, unlocking growth around new and existing station sites and in the wider area. Local places are best placed to develop strategies and delivery plans aimed at making the most of the arrival of HS2.
DfT and HS2 Ltd are working closely with partners across both central and local government to ensure places along the HS2 route take full advantage of the opportunities for economic growth, investment, regeneration and placemaking.
At Euston, we will appoint a development company, separate from HS2 Ltd, to manage the delivery of this project. We will also take on the lessons of success stories such as Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms, which secured £9 billion of private sector investment and thousands of homes. We will harness the future growth that the station will unleash to support its development, to ensure we get the best possible value for the British taxpayer—and ensure that funding is underpinned by contributions from those people and businesses its development supports. At the same time, we are considerably upping the ambition of the Euston redevelopment, where we will be looking to establish a development corporation to create a transformed “Euston Quarter”.
Green transport for a net-zero future
HS2 Ltd continues to make progress on its ambition of reducing the carbon emissions associated with building the railway. The company exceeded its carbon reduction target for 2022-23, achieving a cumulative forecast reduction of 29.6% against the phase 1 baseline. This exceeds the forecast 28% reduction previously expected by March 2023.
The programme remains committed to supporting projects that create and restore woodland along the HS2 route. The HS2 woodland fund was relaunched in June, with £3.25 million available to support landowners near the route to create new native broadleaved woodlands and restore existing ancient woodland sites.
HS2 Ltd is continuing to work on several active travel outcomes. This includes continuing the design and delivery of active travel interfaces across phase 1, exploring opportunities for linear active travel corridors along phase 1 through the repurposing of maintenance access tracks or use of construction roads for walking, wheeling and cycling. HS2 Ltd also continues to work with Sustrans to enhance sections of the national cycle network.
HS2’s stations are being designed to be sustainable. At Old Oak Common, innovative and lower carbon approaches in designing and constructing the station have been used. The station needs minimal energy and net zero emissions while in operation, and there are extensive public transport and active travel choices included in the design.
Skilled workers for an innovative industry
The HS2 programme continues to support tens of thousands of jobs and thousands of UK businesses have already worked on the project. There are over 3,000 UK businesses in the supply chain across the United Kingdom. It is helping train a skilled workforce for the UK’s wider rail and construction industries. The programme has created over 1,300 apprenticeships since phase 1 Royal Assent in 2017 and currently supports over 30,000 jobs, the majority of which are currently working on delivering phase 1.
As the largest infrastructure project in the country, HS2 will also continue to be at the forefront of innovation within the construction industry, using its buying power to ensure innovation is embraced and driven throughout the supply chain, and using the HS2 accelerator programme to support SMEs and pilot new ways of scaling digital technology and innovative delivery.
Local community impact and engagement
HS2 Ltd and its contractors are committed to minimising the impacts of construction on communities. I receive regular updates from the independent construction commissioner and the HS2 residents’ commissioner who proactively assure the considerate delivery of HS2 works along with the Department for Transport’s independent construction inspectors.
In his 25th report, the construction commissioner highlighted the area around Euston station as a particular challenge for communities since the decision to pause works at the station was implemented earlier this year.
In response to the pause in construction activity at Euston, we have commenced work on so called “meanwhile uses” to determine what can be done to reduce the impact of the pause on the local community. We have an opportunity to use parts of the HS2 construction site to provide meaningful and active uses in order to maximise community benefits and generate social and economic value at Euston. This work is being undertaken in close co-operation with the London Borough of Camden, with a strong focus on local engagement to deliver community priorities. So far, we have delivered new green space for communities to enjoy, and we are looking to bring commercial operators and community organisations on board to boost economic and social activity in the area.
For the former 2a and 2b western leg sections, HS2 Ltd’s community engagement operation will focus on resolving any local uncertainty around works that are no longer required, or any restoration works that now need to take place.
HS2 Ltd’s community and business funds exist to support communities affected by construction. These funds are intended to leave a positive legacy long after construction is completed and to go beyond statutory compensation and committed mitigation schemes. So far, over £16.6 million of funding has been awarded across 293 local projects along the line of route. Recent awards have supported village hall refurbishments, new equipment for community groups, and the restoration of outdoor areas for nature and recreation.
The volume of anti-HS2 protestor activity continues to be low. There are currently no protestor sites that directly threaten delivery of HS2. An injunction prohibiting trespass on, and obstruction of access to, land acquired by HS2 Ltd was granted by the High Court in September 2022 and remains active along the route. Illegal protest has cost the project an estimated £38 million in direct costs and around £114 million in consequential costs, such as delays, to date. Of this, only £4 million has been added since HS2’s route-wide injunction was granted.
Land and property
The Government recognise that the changes set out in the Network North Command Paper will mean some people and communities will have had land and property purchased that is no longer needed for the revised scheme. We are committed to acting in good faith and for fair treatment for all affected—particularly those with transactions in progress—while protecting taxpayers appropriately.
Officials are working to formally lift phase 2a safeguarding within weeks and phase 2b safeguarding will be amended by summer 2024, to allow for any safeguarding needed for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR). There will be no further compulsory purchase notices on phase 2a, or the non-NPR sections of phase 2b, and HS2 Ltd is not accepting new applications under the existing schemes from property owners in the areas where safeguarding is going to be lifted. Applications that are in progress will be handled on a case-by-case basis after consultation with the claimant. We are currently developing the programme for selling land acquired for HS2 that is no longer needed and will set out more details in due course. We will take time to develop this programme carefully to ensure it delivers value for money for taxpayers and does not disrupt local property markets. We will engage with the communities and individuals who are affected throughout this process.
Programme governance and controls
The Network North Command Paper set out the Government’s intention to provide strengthened governance and control while the changes to HS2 were implemented. In line with this, the Government are progressing work to:
support the HS2 Ltd executive chair, Sir Jon Thompson, and the HS2 Ltd board in strengthening accountabilities, governance and control within HS2 Ltd through a comprehensive change programme that he is leading;
re-emphasise the primary focus on delivering HS2 cost effectively and affordably as HS2 Ltd’s primary objective after safety;
support Sir Jon Thompson in appointing a highly capable chief executive focused on delivering HS2 to schedule and the revised budget;
review HS2 Ltd’s advice on its revised EAC once this has been adjusted for the changes required by Network North and to then set a revised funding envelope and target cost;
require HS2 Ltd to provide a detailed action plan setting out how it intends to work with the Government and its supply chain to deliver the remainder of HS2 at the lowest reasonable cost including shared assumptions and metrics to assess progress;
require HS2 Ltd to secure ministerial approval for any contract award decisions and contract changes that are above its agreed affordable budget; and
strengthen scrutiny of delivery, cost and schedule performance through a revised sponsor board with full participation from officials from HM Treasury (HMT) and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA).
Alongside these immediate interventions, the Department is commissioning an independently led review of the control and assurance of the delivery of its major infrastructure projects. This will report to the Department for Transport, HMT and the IPA and consider how to improve the Government’s confidence on estimation, scope control, and adherence to schedule and budget of major schemes delivered by their arm’s length bodies, including how obstacles to cost-effective delivery can be reduced.
The ministerial taskforce provides strategic oversight, support and challenge for the successful delivery of HS2 and met on 1 November to discuss the latest performance management information, the cost estimate range for phase 1 and HS2 Ltd’s response to changes to the HS2 programme. It will meet again in December to consider improved management information and obstacles to delivering better value for money construction in the UK context.
The former HS2 Ltd chief executive, Mark Thurston left HS2 Ltd at the end of September. I am grateful to Sir Jon Thompson for taking on additional responsibilities in an executive chair capacity until a successor is in post. Sir Jon will continue to be supported at board level by deputy chair Elaine Holt. Recruiting a new chief executive is a priority for HS2 Ltd and the Department and we expect to be able to announce an appointment early in the new year.
Since my last report, the Secretary of State has also reappointed Ian King as a non-executive director for a further term on the HS2 Ltd board, and Joanna Davinson, Keith Smithson and Nelson Ogunshakin as new non-executive directors.
Forward look
In light of the Network North Command Paper, we will now proceed with the steps necessary to take these decisions forward.
We will continue to focus on the cost-effective delivery of HS2 phase 1 and redirect funding from the cancellation of later phases to the Network North programme. My Department will also begin developing a revised business case for the revised HS2 scheme.
I will provide further updates to Parliament on the development-led Euston project as it progresses.
On phase 2a, the Department will continue to work with HS2 Ltd to bring early/enabling site activities to a safe stop and conclude any land remediation activities for the handing back of sites.
On the phase 2b western leg, further work will consider legislative options for delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail, including whether elements of the High Speed Rail Bill can be repurposed to support delivery of this.
On HS2 east, a study (to be conducted as part of Network North) is being established to holistically consider connectivity in the midlands and connecting areas.
I will update Parliament once HS2 Ltd has revised estimates and new cost targets including any changes to the scope or the budget. Subject to the agreement across Government, I also intend to state this in both 2019 values (for comparison to the historic position) and in 2023 values (to show the cost in current terms and to reflect the recent period of high inflation).
Financial Annex 1
This annex reflects the current spend to date against the funding envelope agreed at notice to proceed in 2020. The phase 1 EAC work has identified challenges within the forward projections which still have uncertainty and are yet to be captured in these tables.
It should be noted that HMG conducted an efficiencies and savings review (ESR) earlier this year, with savings found across the Department, due to significant inflation and non-inflationary pressures on HS2. Following this, the 2023-24 budget was updated at main estimates to £6.5 billion. However, as was noted at main estimates, there remain substantial inflationary pressures on the programme, with full-year costs currently forecast by DfT and HS2 Ltd to be £8 billion, that will need to be resolved at supplementary estimates. As is standard, the mains budget and 2023-24 forecast are both presented in 2019 prices in this report, rather than cash prices, and therefore do not fully account for those remaining pressures. The Government will provide further details of the 2023-24 budget and forecast in cash terms as part of the standard supplementary estimates reporting to Parliament, which will also reflect the Network North announcement.
[HCWS34]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Rowe-Beddoe
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Schools: Special Educational Needs
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect every school to have the capacity to internally identify commonly occurring special educational needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my declared interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we expect all schools to be able to identify commonly occurring special educational needs. In the improvement plan we included proposals to build workforce capacity and equip practitioners to identify needs and make best use of provision. Our increase in the high needs budget, worth £10.54 billion by 2024-25, will help children and young people with SEND in both special and mainstream schools to receive the right support in the right place at the right time.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minster for that reply. How does she square that with the fact that, according to an LSE survey, in lower socioeconomic groups more people are identified as having problems, but far fewer are identified correctly with those needs than are identified in more affluent areas? If you have other conditions such as dyslexia, it is not about doing more work, but working smarter. The way your brain is organised is different; I know this only too well from personal experience. You need different learning patterns and different strategies. When are we going to get to a situation where it is not the tiger parent who gets the diagnosis, but the school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point about the variability in identification of certain commonly occurring special educational needs. There is a variability as the noble Lord explained, but also regionally. That is why we are trying in our special educational needs, disabilities and AP improvement plan to make sure that at every level—from initial teacher training to the qualifications of SENCOs, to the availability of specialist support from educational psychologists—schools get the support they need and such children are identified early.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I am really concerned that parents are being told that their children’s special educational needs cannot be taken on in schools, or to move their children in order to maintain school statistics. Does the Minister agree that this is discriminatory, and what action will the Government take to prevent this happening?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If the noble Baroness has specific cases she would like to share with me afterwards, I will be more than happy to take those up and look into them. It is extremely important that children with special educational needs are in schools where they can flourish and thrive. For the vast majority, that will be in mainstream provision, but I recognise some of the pressures the noble Baroness describes and I am very happy to take this issue away and try to address it directly.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have a 45 year-old adult son with autism and learning disabilities, so I know many of the journeys that parents will have made in getting support for their children. What help is available in early schooling to support parents in identifying children with potential learning difficulties? Does she agree that, given the massive underfunding of schools and early years, schools are finding it difficult to cope with any of the demands, including children with learning disabilities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely do not recognise the picture of massive underfunding of schools. As I have said repeatedly in the House, schools will have the highest budgets per pupil in real terms next year. There have been very significant increases over the last couple of years. Regarding the youngest children, we are funding up to 7,000 early years staff to do a level 3 SENCO qualification, so that we can identify those children at the earliest possible stage.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as laid out in the register as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. The Government’s SEND plan made not one mention of physical disability or cerebral palsy, despite referring to learning disability and autism. Without identification, how will the Minister make sure that schools support the needs of children with cerebral palsy, the most common cause of physical disability in children, to ensure that they achieve the best possible educational outcomes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I recognise the point my noble friend makes, and she will be aware that we are running a number of pathfinder projects and testing some of our new approaches, including for children with physical disabilities. I hope my noble friend is pleased that in the improvement plan, we have added a fourth early standard. In additional to early language support, autism and mental health and wellbeing, we are also focusing on children with visual and hearing impairments whose performance at school currently is well below their potential.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the Education Committee report of September 2023 recommends that the department scrutinise the use of alternative provision settings and ensure that children and young people with SEND are transferred there only after having a statutory assessment, and not use them as a behavioural management tool. What steps has the department taken towards addressing this issue?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, the ESC report to which the right reverend Prelate refers is very recent, so the department is considering very seriously the recommendations from the committee. However, I absolutely recognise that behind the right reverend Prelate’s question is a concern about the quality of alternative provision; but, used well, it can provide an opportunity for early intervention and to return children to mainstream education.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Can the Minister tell the House what subsequent measures the DfE will put in place following reports from Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission, and from Hertfordshire County Council this week, identifying widespread and systemic failings in SEN provision?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, we take those reports extremely seriously, and that is the value of having an independent inspectorate. I cannot comment on the specific Hertfordshire case, but we work with the local authority or the trust in question to ensure that those issues are addressed.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister will be aware that, every year, the number of children and young people with education, health and care plans who are permanently excluded from school is increasing significantly. How do we ensure that those children get their education, health and care plans implemented?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure that there is a direct link between implementation and exclusion; there are cases where a plan has been implemented. Of course, the last thing we want for any child—particularly children with education, health and care plans—is for them to be excluded from school. To return to my earlier answer, the Government are trying to think this through from the earliest stages for early years practitioners, equipping every teacher to teach children with special educational needs well and making sure they get the specialist provision they require. That is why our investment in this sector has expanded so dramatically.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as ever, I declare my interest as a teacher. Will the Government reconsider the priority given to parental preference in educational placements for children with EHC plans, given the opinion of many professionals that this is not in the best interests of the child or of efficient education provision, and that the popular schools are at breaking point?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, a number of these things are under review, and we will test them as part of our pathfinders and in the improvement plan. It is very important that that balance be kept between the professional judgment of teachers, to which the noble Lord referred, and the sense of confidence that parents have in the system.
Schools: Food Standards
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the regulations relating to standards for food in schools, and in particular whether they plan to reduce the amount of added sugar they allow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the school food standards regulate the food and drink provided at both lunchtime and other times of the school day. They already restrict foods high in fat, salt and sugar. We believe that the current standards provide a robust yet flexible framework to ensure that pupils in England continue to receive high-quality and nutritious food that builds healthy eating habits for life. We continue to keep the standards under review.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister is not indicating that the Government are willing to undertake a review. Is she aware that they undertook a review in 2014, which eased the rules so that more sugar can be used in school meals? This is damaging the health of children, as we see from the evidence of morbid obesity. Will she review the position and please move to at least apply the regulations that applied when Labour was in power, when we had fewer children with obesity?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope that the noble Lord recognises at lot of the measures that the Government have taken on sugar content in food generally and the positioning of food products in retail settings, as well as our wider approach to food education in the national curriculum and our investment in the primary PE and sport premium.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to a study published this week showing a welcome reduction in the number of hospital extractions of children’s teeth due to the soft drinks industry levy. Does she agree with the chair of the British Dental Association that now is the time for the Government to double down on measures that force industry to reduce the amount of sugar in food and drink, and that our school meals regulations should be part of that doubling down?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have made significant changes with the soft drinks levy, the regulations on home calorie labelling and the restrictions that I mentioned in response to the noble Lord opposite regarding the location of products high in fat and sugar. I understand that those location restrictions are judged to be the single most impactful obesity policy on reducing children’s calorie consumption.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, what is concerning is the apparent lack of understanding among many schoolchildren today about where and how food is produced and what is wholesome and healthy food. With that in mind, is it not time for the Government to look again at investing more in domestic sciences to teach children how to cook good food that does not include unhealthy contents?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that that is covered in the national curriculum in a number of subjects, including within design and technology, where there is a focus on exactly the issues of where food is produced and how to cook in a healthy way, and on teaching children to cook a number of mainly savoury recipes.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to a number of actions that the Government have taken that go wider than schools, but why have the Government consistently postponed the introduction of a ban on multibuy products relating to high sugar and fat content? It has now been postponed for another two years. Why is that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I may need to write to the noble Lord with a detailed answer to that. The Government follow the evidence on what will have the greatest impact. Specifically in relation to children, as I said, it is the location of products that makes the biggest difference.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My lords, the Minister referred in her first Answer to my noble friend to a certainty that food that was supplied to children would be healthy and nutritious—I think those are the words she used. If I were a parent with a child at school, how would I find the evidence demonstrating that the food being offered to them met those standards?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sure that parents can access the school food standards. We work closely with schools and help them, particularly at times of inflationary pressure, to ensure that they get the best value for money. We offer that service to any state-funded school that wants it. Again, I can write to the noble Baroness with details of where parents would find that information.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this week happens to be Sugar Awareness Week. The Question from my noble friend Lord Brooke rightly highlights the risk of sugar in school food. Shockingly, four in 10 children now leave primary school at an above healthy weight. What more action will the Government take to ensure that all foods and drinks served in schools are as nutritious as possible? Have they assessed the impact of delaying advertising bans aimed at protecting children?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I think I have tried to say in response to earlier questions, the school food standards are part of a much wider picture of what impacts on childhood obesity, which I agree is at very worrying levels. This Government have introduced universal infant free school meals, we have robust school food standards that are set in legislation, and we have made a number of other moves to make sure that children get a healthy diet and are educated in a way to understand what that is.
Lord Bird (CB)
Are we aware that one of the reasons why children eat a lot of sugar is that their parents do? There is inherited bad performance when it comes to food and your social position. When will the Government get behind my Bill, which would create a ministry of poverty prevention so that these things can be dealt with? We cannot just keep expecting people suddenly to wake up to the fact that sugar is not good for them. Until we hit poverty, we are not going anywhere.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have a strong record in this area, with changes to the eligibility for free school meals for families in receipt of universal credit. I hear the strength of the noble Lord’s feelings, but, as he will have just heard in the King’s Speech, I am afraid the direct answer to his question about when the Government will support his proposal is that it will not be in the near term.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, although it is obviously important that we inform pupils and their families about eating less sugar and having healthier diets generally, are my noble friend the Minister and her department aware of some of the unintended consequences? For example, when the soft drinks levy came in, one company found that its sales were going down, so it brought in an older version called Irn Bru 1901, which was sweeter and more expensive for consumers. How do we make sure that we do not cause the unintended consequence of unhealthier drinks?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said, specifically on food and drink available in school, our Get Help Buying for Schools service makes sure that schools buy not only efficiently and compliantly but well and healthily.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
This week, given what the King did yesterday in launching his charity to tackle food poverty, we need to acknowledge that this is a real issue. Many children who are entitled to free school meals have never been registered for them or claimed them. Sheffield has had an auto-enrolment scheme for free school meals, which has meant that 6,500 children who otherwise would not be getting a meal at school now are. Will the Government encourage every local authority to auto-enrol children who are eligible but not claiming? That would be a tiny but none the less significant step in tackling food poverty.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very interested in the noble Baroness’s example of Sheffield because, when I have been asked about auto-enrolment previously, I noted that the constraints around it relate to data protection and the ability to share someone’s details. I would be interested to follow up with the noble Baroness later.
Biomass Strategy 2023: Cross Sectoral Sustainability Framework
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish their consultation to implement a cross sectoral sustainability framework for biomass, announced in the Biomass Strategy 2023.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my registered interest as vice-chair of Peers for the Planet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will consult in 2024 on the sustainability actions set out in the Biomass Strategy, including developing and implementing a cross-sectoral sustainability framework to enable greater consistency across sectors and to further strengthen our sustainability criteria.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister for the Answer, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the UK’s single largest source of CO2 emissions is a biomass power station. That fuel generates only 4% of our power and creates 13.1 million tonnes of CO2, which is about 20% of the total that we emit as a country. But, as a nation, we subsidise it with our taxes. We call it renewable, so apparently it does not count. The recent task and finish report that the Government commissioned, looking at whether biomass could be called carbon-neutral, could not confirm that this was the case. Seeing that the evidence is pointing in the wrong direction, will the Government commit to moving away from this assumption that biomass is carbon-neutral, unless proven otherwise? Will they issue no new licences for generation and end their classification of this as a renewable power source?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness knows that I do not agree with her on this. The biomass that is used for generation in the two main plants is sustainable. There are very strict sustainability criteria attached to it, and the generators are measured against those criteria by Ofgem.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment to the cross-sectoral frame- work, provided that it is statutory rather than voluntary. Does the Minister regard this as a significant change from the Government’s previous position, when they decided to appoint a senior member of Drax management to the Climate Change Committee that advises government on biomass policy at a time when Drax had received £11 billion in public subsidy for biomass?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There has been no significant change in government policy. The sustainability criteria for biomass have existed for a while now, in concert with other biofuel strategies across government. Of course, if we can take the opportunity to make those criteria even better and even more sustainable, we will do so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, surely the answer to the noble Baroness’s question about Drax is to reduce the barriers to increasing domestic production of biomass in this country. Can the Minister say something about the biomass feedstocks innovation programme? Is it one that he feels strongly about, and is it actually going to be taken forward and have more money put into it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, my noble friend makes a very good point. We have currently awarded £32 million of funding to projects as part of the Government’s £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio, because there is an awful lot that we can do to improve the availability of biomass feedstocks and look at deploying it more effectively.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the “Panorama” on Drax offered vivid and compelling evidence that fatally undermined Drax as a renewable proposition. The Minister has previously asserted that that was an accurate presentation, but as yet has offered no evidence to support his claim. Drax wrote to me almost four months ago, also claiming that the programme was a misrepresentation, and offered to present me with evidence. Despite prods from me and further promises from Drax, I have yet to receive that evidence. Is it possible that the “Panorama” was an accurate representation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
To slightly correct the noble Lord, I think I said it was an inaccurate portrayal, rather than an accurate one, as he said. We have debated this matter before, and the noble Lord has tabled a number of Parliamentary Questions to me on it. I cannot go any further than to repeat what I have already said: government officials have engaged extensively with forestry experts and Canadian officials following the “Panorama” programme, and we have found no evidence that wood pellet production in the region is unsustainable. We continue to believe that the narrative would have benefited from a much fuller picture of how harvesting decisions are made in practice.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare at the outset that I have a biomass boiler, which came with the house I live in—but, honestly, we are trying to get rid of it. It takes trees between 44 and 115 years for sequestration of carbon. The lower estimate takes us well beyond 2050, the upper beyond the lives of anyone born today. So clearly biomass is not renewable within the timeframe needed to tackle climate change. Will the Government take that into account and ensure that the UK applies the precautionary principle and ends the ridiculous classification of biomass as a renewable power source?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness has a biomass boiler. In fact, she does not need to get rid of it, because if she sources her pellets from the appropriate sources, that is a renewable resource. These are not pellets from virgin forests but by-products from the timber production process. There are very strict sustainability criteria attached to them and, even if those pellets were not used for biomass production, they would be a waste product because the timber would still be harvested for its other uses. So the noble Baroness does not need to feel so guilty.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend look favourably on taking fast-growing willow coppice and miscanthus from local growers right across Yorkshire to give a constant stream of reliable, sustainable farm produce to Drax going forward?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I did not quite hear the start of my noble friend’s question, but if she is asking whether we want to source more sustainable biofuels from UK sources, the answer is yes, absolutely.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The transition to clean power will require a massive expansion of alternative energy sources right across the board, whether biomass, onshore wind, solar or others, which will also deliver energy security and hundreds of thousands of good green jobs. This cannot be achieved without reviewing the sustainability and economic competitiveness of each energy source and accelerating carbon capture and storage. How are the Government working comprehensively towards these two vital functions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I absolutely agree with the first part of the noble Baroness’s question. She is right that there needs to be a variety of sources of power: renewable sources, biomass linked to carbon capture and storage, and long-term hydrogen production. Of course, in the net zero strategy we look at all these things in the round, linked to a long-term analysis of how the power needs of the UK are best met going forward.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, when wood decomposes, does it release CO2 naturally?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think it does, but I am not going to get into a scientific debate about it. It certainly does when it is burned, but of course it absorbs CO2 when it is growing; that is the nature of it being sustainable.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, so far my noble friend the Minister has talked a lot about wood pellets and other things, but can he enlighten us on the Government’s strategy on third and fourth generation biomass and how they intend to encourage domestic producers in those two areas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure I know what third and fourth generation biomass is. I will have to have a cup of coffee with noble Lords afterwards and we can have a chat about it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Does the Minister agree that trees decompose only once they are felled?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I suppose, if we want to get into a debate about that, they absorb CO2 when they are growing. If they are felled and just rot on the ground they emit CO2, but also when they are burned.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Following on from that, does the Minister agree, particularly thinking about not just the products from Drax but local production, there is an alternative use of biomass, which can be put back into the soil to increase soil carbon and soil health? There is a real benefit there that needs to be considered when thinking about whether it is better to use that carbon or simply burn it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I shall ruin the noble Baroness’s social media portfolio and agree with her this once: of course, we need to look at these things in the round and there are lots of alternative uses. It is the whole basis of the biomass strategy, because there are different uses that we can put it to and we need to look at what is most effective both for the environment and for UK power production.
Black and Minority Ethnic Babies: Mortality Rates
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the mortality rates of black and minority ethnic babies, following the publication of research from the National Child Mortality Database.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government are committed to tackling disparities for parents and babies. We are addressing this through the National Health Service three-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services, which sets out how care will be made more equitable for women, babies and families. Support is also provided through the universal public health programmes and programmes that target vulnerable families.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, what is very worrying in a rich country such as the UK, with a universal, mature healthcare system, is that this figure of infant mortality rates for babies and children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds is going up and not down. What does the Minister believe the drivers of this data show and how will the Government reverse it? For example, the Apgar score for testing the health of babies, which is a skin tone test, does not work for black and brown babies.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question and for her work in this space. I have tried to delve into the numbers. It seems that roughly half the reasons why black and ethnic minority people have higher death rates are to do with socioeconomic and lifestyle factors: where they live, levels of obesity, drinking, smoking and those sorts of factors. Clearly, behind that there is a lot that needs to be done in terms of education and support, folic acid in bread and folic acid generally. The other half is more to do with racial factors. English as a second language is a key thing behind that. I hate to make generalisations, but the fact that black and ethnic minority mothers can often be less assertive means that clearly there you need training of staff to take more time, listen more, make sure that they are understanding and asking the questions to find out whether the issues are there.
Lord Sewell of Sanderstead (Con)
My Lords, to what extent is the research programme of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities looking into this area of health disparities in childbirth and death in childbirth?
Lord Markham (Con)
The database from which all the evidence and data have come has just been published. That is exactly why we are publishing the database: so that we can understand the reasons behind it. We are also tying that to the NIHR to see what research is needed in those areas.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, behind every figure in the national child mortality database lies a personal family tragedy, which we all need to try to understand and reduce as far as we can, as the Minister said. The regional breakdown of the figures shows that there is much less variation between different ethnicities in London than in other English regions. Will the Minister look into that to see whether there are things we can learn from London—perhaps there the staff follow procedures where they are more responsive to people from varied cultural and ethnic backgrounds —so that those lessons can be applied in the rest of England?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely. One main reason for that is that in London there is generally a more ethnically representative mix of staff, who are better placed to understand and work in that way. Clearly, we need to increase training as well as recruitment across the rest of the country to make sure that they achieve the same levels.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know how highly regarded he is in this place as one of the most caring members of the Government, but what does he say to the comments of the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health about how troubling these figures are in a wealthy nation such as ours and about child poverty in this country being a driver of child mortality? What will the Government do about that?
Lord Markham (Con)
That is specifically what the Best Start for Life programme is all about. It is a joint Department of Health and DfE £300 million initiative focused on the 75 most deprived areas and local authorities. As the noble Baroness might be aware, the whole reason Andrea Leadsom wanted to come back as a Minister—I was talking to her about this yesterday—was to drive this programme, which she is passionately behind. That work is being done through family hubs, making sure that the whole family is involved and bringing in the dads. That sort of action is very much focused on making sure we tackle this.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, every year 4,000 babies die due to pregnancy-specific conditions such as pre-term birth and pre-eclampsia, but 73% of drugs given to pregnant women do not have any safety information and only one drug has been developed specifically for use in pregnancy over the last 30 years. During that time, 600 drugs have been developed for cardiac conditions. Will the Minister look at the report Safe and Effective Medicines for Use in Pregnancy: A Call to Action from the University of Birmingham, which offers sensible and effective ways to put this right and reduce deaths in pregnancy?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, I would be very happy to take up my noble friend’s suggestion and will make sure that the regulators, NICE and the MHRA, are linked into that as well.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, research has shown that the mortality rate among Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children is far higher than among any other minority-ethnic group, yet this is hardly ever reflected in any account of the situation. Will the Minister get his department to recognise more explicitly the disproportionate mortality rate in this often unrepresented ethnic-minority group?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. Obviously, we want to find every group and then understand the targeted action around them. Noble Lords will have often heard me say that one of the most effective bits of joined-up government I have ever seen was the Troubled Families initiative, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and I am interested in the 13 local authority pilots that are using wraparound services to identify community groups and troubled families in particular and provide them with cross-government help.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that over the last four years the NHS workforce has grown by over 14%, but in the workforce for midwives there is a shortage of 2,500, according to the Royal College of Midwives. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that we have sufficient midwives on the wards and, more particularly, a diverse workforce from ethnic minorities who will become midwives and health visitors? The numbers do not look great and of course this plugs in to the prevention strategy the Government have in place.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, it absolutely does fit into it. We have increased the number of maternity staff by about 14% since 2010, and the long-term workforce plan is all about making spaces for 1,000 extra students and having many routes into it. Noble Lords have often heard me talk about how my mother got into nursing as an older mum—she got into maternity services. There are apprenticeships and later-life opportunities. You should not only be a graduate; you often know much more about life when you are that bit older, especially if you are a mum.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, child mortality rates in all high-income countries, apart from this one, are improving. What is it about this country that is causing this, and what evidence do the Government have to show that there is a specific problem here? What measures will be used to tackle this, and by what dates will this be done?
Lord Markham (Con)
I have specifically investigated infant mortality rates. If you look at it, you see the increase is in pre-24-week term cases. Post 24 weeks, the number of cases has remained stable, the data has shown. I have been trying to drill down to understand why it happens within less than 24 weeks. Clearly, more work needs to be done. We are also changing the way this is being measured. We are looking for more indications of whether there are early signs of life, and if there are no early signs of life, that is not recorded as a death. Now there is a lot more investigation to understand those early signs of life, so the change in measurement could be increasing the numbers. I am happy to go into more detail on that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on destitution found that minority ethnic groups are disproportionately affected by destitution. What steps are the Government taking directly to reduce destitution among this group?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, noble Lords will know that housing, to my mind, is key to so much of that, and the whole building programmes and the million extra houses are a key part of that. If you look into health across the board, you see that the homeless, for instance, use and need A&E services more than ever. Clearly, it is a root cause we need to tackle.
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed as the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:
Ashton of Hyde, L, Barker, B, Beith, L, Bull, B, Colville of Culross, V, Duncan of Springbank, L, Faulkner of Worcester, L, Finlay of Llandaff, B, Fookes, B, Garden of Frognal, B, Geddes, L, Haskel, L, Healy of Primrose Hill, B, Henig, B, Kennedy of Cradley, B, Kennedy of Southwark, L, Kinnoull, E, Lexden, L, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, Morris of Bolton, B, Newlove, B, Pitkeathley, B, Russell of Liverpool, L, Scott of Needham Market, B, Stansgate, V, Stoneham of Droxford, L, Watkins of Tavistock, B, Williams of Trafford, B, Young of Cookham, L.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):
Brown of Cambridge, B, Haskel, L, Ravensdale, L, Winston, L.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 14 November.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 September be approved.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2022–23. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 November.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Minto, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 14 November.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 14 November.
King’s Speech
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House, I thank His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious Speech, and I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an Humble Address.
I will also take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Goldie for her exemplary work over the past four and a half years as a Minister of State for Defence and in this House. Her diligent work ethic and profound sense of duty were an example to all of us, and I look forward to her remaining engaged in this House from the Benches behind me.
This is an historic moment. The last time the King’s Speech was officially delivered was back in His Majesty’s grandfather’s day, in 1951. King George VI himself was too ill to deliver the address that day, so the job fell to the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds. Seven decades on, we have entered a very different age. In 1951, our nation was coming to terms with the devastation and impoverishment at the end of World War II, we were adjusting to the bipolar mindset of the Cold War and we were embarking on a very hot conflict indeed on the Korean peninsula.
Today, we are living in a world of multipolar conflict, the most recent beginning on 7 October, when Hamas committed a terrible, unprovoked pogrom against innocent citizens in Israel, the worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust. Since then, we have been clear about our unwavering support for Israel’s right to self-defence as well as the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law. We have dispatched UK military assets to the region to carry out surveillance and act as a deterrent, and we have committed £30 million in additional aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, more than doubling our existing support for this year. This will allow trusted partners to distribute essential relief items and services, such as food, water and shelter. In recent weeks, the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have all paid visits to the region and discussed the risk of escalation extensively with partners.
But the current war in the Middle East only serves as a reminder of how interlinked the threats we face are. Lurking behind Hamas is the spectre of Iran, which continues to pose an unacceptable risk, not just to Israel but to her neighbours. Iran’s proxies—Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen—have all displayed their aggressive intent. Iran in its turn is allied to Russia, which it continues supplying with suicide drones.
But even as we watch events unfold in the Middle East, we will not be distracted from our determination to assist our Ukrainian friends in their fight for freedom. Russia, despite having upped its attacks in recent weeks, continues to lose strategically. It has incurred staggering losses, including almost 300,000 casualties since it began its illegal conflict, of which approximately 50,000 Russians have probably been killed. At the same time, the Kremlin has lost thousands of battle tanks and protected vehicles, as well as many hundreds of UAVs, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Most recently, its assaults over the ground in Avdiivka saw it lose a further 200 armoured vehicles and suffer several thousand casualties. A newly built Russian navy corvette was almost certainly damaged in the strike while alongside at Kerch in occupied Crimea.
Putin believes the West will tire of this war. Well, he can think again. The UK has been clear: we are in it for the long term. We were the first European country to send Ukraine lethal aid, the first to provide it with tanks and the first to provide it with long-range missiles. Last week, we reached the milestone of training more than 30,000 troops, with instructors from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden all participating in the effort—the perfect embodiment of the international community’s collective resolve. This year, we are on course to spend around £2.3 billion on military support for Ukraine. That is money for more training, more air defence and more artillery.
But defence is only one element in our whole-of-government approach to Ukraine. We have also delivered successive waves of the harshest sanctions Russia has ever faced, targeting more than 1,800 individuals and entities while freezing more than £18 billion-worth of Russian assets in the UK. Meanwhile, the UK has taken the lead in ensuring Ukraine is ready to start regeneration the day after conflict ends. Earlier in the year, with Ukraine, we hosted the Ukraine Recovery Conference, raising more than £60 billion towards meeting its reconstruction needs. As we look ahead to 2024, we will continue to do all we can to ensure Ukraine receives the assistance necessary to reassert its sovereignty, regain its territory and restore peace.
Meanwhile, the UK is also deeply engaged in the wider work of strengthening the Euro-Atlantic security. NATO remains the bedrock of our defence, and the refresh of both the integrated review and the defence Command Paper has further enshrined its centrality to our security. We have committed nearly the totality of our air and maritime assets to the NATO force model and, next year, the Army will provide the land component for the inaugural allied reaction force. Despite the convulsions of the geostrategic environment, one of the rare bright spots has been the way other nations have stepped up to support the alliance. At Vilnius, allies agreed the most radical overhaul of NATO’s deterrence and defence since the Cold War, a new generation of war-fighting planes, backed by more ready forces and a defence investment pledge which makes 2% of GDP a floor, not a ceiling.
NATO is now more resilient. Not one Russian boot has entered NATO territory. It is stronger too. Finland has already acceded to the alliance, with Sweden, we hope, soon to follow. We warmly welcome the steps that Turkey has taken to bring Sweden’s accession closer, as well as continuing to encourage Hungary to ratify without delay. In the meantime, we will support Sweden to conclude the process and remain ready to assist with rapid integration into NATO structures.
Since our adversaries are acting globally, from the Indo-Pacific to west Africa, from Latin America to the High North, we must compete globally too. As our Prime Minister said recently, Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security are indivisible. China in particular poses us an epoch-defining challenge. It is not only accelerating its military modernisation but using assertive and coercive behaviour to rewrite the international order that has provided stability and prosperity for generations. It is flexing its economic and military muscle to advance territorial claims in the Indo-Pacific. It is expanding its influence across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, including through the proliferation of weapons systems and, of course, it has formed a “no limits” partnership with Russia.
That said, we do not accept that China’s relationship with the UK or its international impact are set on a predetermined course. We compete with China where we need to and we hold it to account when we need to. At the same time, we have been working harder to shape an open international order that upholds stability, security and prosperity and which promotes sustainable development. We have sought to be more proactive and more persistently engaged in the Indo-Pacific than ever before. As part of our tilt towards the region, we have offshore patrol vessels permanently deployed to deliver humanitarian aid. Our regional British defence staff are expanding their influence and we have defence presence in Singapore to help build regional capacity. Our global combat air programme partnership with Japan and Italy, and the AUKUS programme with the United States and Australia, provide case studies for our new approach to global partnerships.
For the avoidance of doubt, these are not just about countering threats, or submarines and planes. They are about collaborative effort, about partnering for technology- transferring, skill-sharing information exchanges. They are national and generational enterprises. The allow us to sustain our capabilities over the long term and strengthen our supply chain resilience to help us prosper through the 2020s and the 2030s. In fact, this partnership principle runs like a golden thread through our approach to global affairs. You see it in how we are working with the G7 to enhance co-operation on supply chain resilience and in how we are working with Canada to guarantee supplies of critical materials. You see it in how we are enhancing energy security, whether renewing participation in the North Seas Energy Cooperation group, stepping up collaboration with the USA or building investment partnerships with Gulf states on renewables.
You also see it in our deep-seated commitment to doing global good. Over the past year, we have delivered rapid responses to those affected by natural disasters in Morocco and Libya—the fastest deployment of UK international search and rescue since 2001. We have announced more than £5 billion-worth of special drawing rights contributions to the International Monetary Fund’s trusts for low-income countries, alongside a World Bank commitment to lend an additional $50 billion over the next 10 years. The Foreign Secretary has stepped up his visits to a range of countries, including Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone, to reinforce our commitment to building partnerships to tackle geopolitical challenges.
With COP 28 just around the corner, we are also reinforcing our commitment to tackling climate change by funding renewable energy transitions across Asia, investing £2 billion in the green climate fund and signing a UK-Brazil partnership on green and inclusive growth.
By helping others, we are also helping ourselves: UK leadership is opening up exciting opportunities for our people. We have brought in technology envoys to deepen our science and technology partnerships across the globe. We recently hosted the first international AI safety summit here in London to harness these paradigm-shifting technologies for the benefits of humanity. We continue to increase our prosperity by expanding our portfolio of trade deals. We have acceded to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—a group of economies that accounted for £113 billion-worth of UK trade in 2022, and whose investment alone created more than 5,000 new UK jobs last year. We have launched the Developing Countries Trading Scheme, covering more than £21 billion in exports to the UK each year, and we have supported free trade agreement negotiations with India, Mexico and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
To keep delivering globally in a world of growing dangers, we must keep strengthening defence. Our defence Command Paper refresh set out our plans to invest hundreds of billions of pounds to recapitalise our capabilities across land, sea and air: there will be new hunter-killer submarines; next generation Dreadnoughts to carry our nuclear deterrent; new classes of frigates; Typhoon with system upgraded; plus the arrival of F35s, A400s, Challenger 3, Boxer and the next generation of Ajax. On the latter vehicle, there has been a turbulent process—which this House knows only too well—but I am pleased to say we have at last turned a corner. Ajax is now back in the hands of the Army, with training with the Household Cavalry resuming in June. Reliability growth trials are progressing well, with more than 18,000 kilometres driven, as they continue to stress-test the platform and components through a series of battlefield missions that represent years of activity. Beyond that, we are investing in infrastructure and technical support, dockyard infrastructure and technical workshops: the sort of out-of-the-limelight activity that often gets taken for granted but is critical during times of conflict.
Over the past weekend, we have been reminded of how much we owe to those countless generations who have served and sacrificed to keep our nations safe. Our people have always been our greatest asset and our finest capability, but our challenge over the coming years will be to keep recruiting and retaining world-class talent. Yet if we are to compete with civilian employers, we must do things differently: ignoring artificial barriers, ditching old rules while respecting the past, and moulding our offer around the person and not the other way round. That is why we have implemented all 67 recommendations in the Haythornthwaite review, which will transform the way we reward and incentivise our people. This includes the introduction of zig-zag careers, allowing our people freedom to move around between public and private sector to enhance their skills.
We have also begun the painful process of addressing the MoD’s past misdeeds. I know that for many LGBT veterans the publication of the Etherton review revived painful memories of the shameful ban. We have apologised for those historic wrongs so that LGBT veterans can once again take pride in their service. We are determined to make amends: restoring medals that were snatched away, awarding campaign and other medals that were withheld, while clarifying pension rights and the presentation of the veterans badge.
Finally, as we contemplate the chill of winter, our thoughts turn to accommodation and making sure that our people have the warm and inviting homes that they deserve. Our wider defence estate optimisation portfolio will provide new and refurbished military residential accommodation and housing for over 40,000 soldiers, sailors, aviators and their families. We are injecting a further £400 million into military housing over the next two years. That is money to refit kitchens and bathrooms, and upgrade boilers for more than 1,000 homes. It is money to protect more than 4,000 homes from damp and to ensure that the 1,000 currently unused homes are refurbished to increase the number available to services families.
With the onset of winter, we must also make sure that there are no repeats of last year’s experience, when some personnel were left hanging on the telephone for hours to try to get their heating fixed. I am glad to say that things are in a better shape on this front. Our accommodation contractors have increased resources by more than 40%. They have laid on additional out-of-hours staff and ensured better availability of parts, and they have upped our handling capacity, so that the average call is answered not within hours but within 29 seconds.
I began by saying that the world has changed beyond all recognition since the previous King’s Speech was delivered. The following is an extract from that speech in 1951:
“The measures to this end must include drastic action to reduce the growing inflation in our economy which threatens the maintenance of our defence programme and which, if unchecked, must cause a continuing rise in the cost of living”.
As Mark Twain is reputed to have said,
“History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes”.
There is another similarity with those distant days and it is this: our determination, in the face of growing danger, to continue standing up for what we believe in, supporting our allies and investing in our people, so that we can look forward with resolve and hope.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with a few preliminary remarks, which are particularly important when we talk about foreign policy and defence. First, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his place and the comprehensive introduction he has given to this important debate in your Lordships’ House. I wish him well because, as he is a British Defence Minister, it is in all our interests that he does well. His words will be listened to and adhered to not only in this country but across the globe. We all wish him well in his post.
I join the noble Earl in his tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who carried out her duties with a grace and charm that impressed us all, but also with real determination, effort and hard work. For all of us, she symbolised what is good about this country and she was well regarded in this Chamber, in this country and abroad. She was also very kind and collegiate to me. Although we had some policy differences, she was always polite and courteous, and she was exemplary in her role as a British Defence Minister. We wish her well for the future.
It is also good to see the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, remaining in his place. It is important that I say that. My noble friend Lord Collins and I hold the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the British Government to account with respect to their foreign policy. But it is only to challenge them; we do not want foreign policy to fail. We certainly have our differences, but we are pleased that he has stayed in his place, now to be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, whom we wish well in his new role.
Of course, we will welcome the new Foreign Secretary to the Chamber—with varying degrees of warmth, from what I gather from the articles I have read. But the serious point is that he is the British Foreign Secretary, which is an important post. He will be held to account in a proper, strong and determined way by my noble friend Lord Collins, as it is in the interests of all of us that the Foreign Secretary works hard, as I am sure he will, and succeeds in his post. It is important for us to make those preliminary remarks in this Chamber.
We have had much debate in the Chamber on the King’s Speech. Notwithstanding what I just said, there are clear differences with respect to our views on many policy areas to do with health, jobs, schools, the environment and, as we have seen today, the Rwanda judgment. These will continue to be debated, argued about and discussed. However, on defence and foreign policy we can all unite around one principle: that we are proud of our country and of our Armed Forces, past and present—as proud as we were just a few days ago, as the Minister said. To the few who may question the relevance of Remembrance Sunday, I record my own experience, as I am sure was the experience of many noble Lords. There were record numbers of people at the ceremony that I attended. What was particularly pleasing was the large number of young people who were there as well. What an inspiration that is for the future.
We are living in an age when the values of freedom, equality and democracy that the UK stands for are under threat. That is why it is right to support Israel, while respecting international law, in its fight against the terrorists of Hamas; why it is so important to continue to support the heroic efforts of Ukraine against Russian aggression; and why the recently signed AUKUS agreement is so important in recognising the threat from China that countries such as Australia and others in the region quite rightly feel. I suggest to the new Foreign Secretary that the China he dealt with a few years ago is a very different China from the one that we see today. It is, of course, important to remember that there are other areas across the globe where there is conflict.
The strength of our military, along with our friends and allies, coupled to an effective foreign policy, is vital if we are to deal with these challenges. We believe that we need a new Government, with a fresh, reinvigorated approach. It cannot be right that our Army has been so drastically cut in terms of numbers. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, it cannot be right that we have got to a state where some of our Armed Forces are living in damp and mouldy housing, with 4,000 not paying rent it is so bad. It cannot be right that there are so many problems in defence procurement, again notwithstanding what the Minister said about Ajax and the E7 Wedgetail surveillance planes. It cannot be right that one in five ships has been cut from our surface fleet since 2010 and that the RAF has had 200 planes taken out of service in the last five years. It cannot be right that we have seen the problems we have had with stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been put under pressure with respect for our support for Ukraine and other areas. If elected, a Labour Government will undertake a defence review within their first 12 months to look at all this, to reinvigorate and realign our priorities. In our first 100 days, we will apply a NATO test to major defence programmes to ensure that our NATO commitments are met in full.
We need the UK to rediscover its confidence as a global player—not doing everything ourselves but working with our friends and allies across the globe. It is not only our hard power but the value of defence diplomacy that will do this, demonstrating our interest and presence in areas. We need to stand up for what we believe in and not be bullied, frightened or coerced into believing that what we say or do does not matter. It does, and we should be confident in that.
His Majesty’s Opposition’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and we wish to continue to secure Britain’s place in the alliance as the leading European nation to anticipate areas of future Russian aggression and respond as the Arctic opens up. Our relationship with the USA, whatever happens there, is crucial and vital for global security in Europe, the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere. We are proud of that close military and political relationship, but also will work with other friends to deliver our common goals, both diplomatically and militarily.
Labour believes that Britain should be leading the debate about the future of international security, and would negotiate a new pact on security with our European partners, rooted in mutual respect, shared values and common interests. Labour will focus on new threats as well as traditional ones, defending our country from foreign interference.
Let me reiterate this for the avoidance of doubt: the renewal and maintenance of our UK nuclear deterrent is essential and provides protection for us, our NATO allies and global security. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the renewal of the nuclear submarine fleet and the missile system is a top priority for the Government, and we support them in their efforts in this respect. It also reminds us again of our important global role and the fact that we are a P5 UN Security Council member. We believe in multilateralism and will use this position to renew our efforts to keep Britain safe and make the world more secure and peaceful, all of this done recognising that our record on international development gave hope to our allies and partners in the fight for a better world. We will recommit to the 0.7% aid target, to be delivered as soon as resources allow us to do so, knowing that tackling humanitarian crises, poverty, food insecurity and conflict help to deliver a safer, more secure world.
We also know the crucial importance of our Armed Forces personnel. They are respected worldwide and will be at the heart of our defence plans, notwithstanding the important work the Government are doing to deal with some of the problems there have been. We recognise that the majority of the Armed Forces want some of those issues dealt with and sorted out. We see spending on defence as a force for good and for job creation, and we will make this case to the British public. We will adopt a British-built-by-default approach to defence procurement, to boost manufacturing within the UK supply chain.
Of course, the news is dominated by the conflict in the Middle East. We have seen scenes on our streets relating to the conflict. We all utterly condemn anti-Semitism and Islamophobia—they have no part in our society. There is a need for a full and immediate humanitarian pause in the fighting across the whole of Gaza to alleviate the suffering of Palestinian civilians and for Hamas terrorists to release the hostages. Urgent steps must be taken to continue the efforts to prevent wider regional escalation. We should all note the number of, for example, US military strikes in neighbouring states in recent days. All of us, through the available international bodies, need to redouble our efforts to achieve a two-state solution to bring peace and stability.
We want our country to be self-confident on the global stage, acting with integrity, courage and consistency, and delivering for the people of Britain while making our world safer. In an uncertain world, we must, with our allies, such as the USA and Japan, and through AUKUS and NATO, be a reliable partner and a resolute ally. We need to strike trade deals and build partnerships that deliver prosperity at home and abroad. It should ring loud and clear from your Lordships’ debate today that we will be steadfast champions of democracy and human rights. Our defence policy and our foreign policy are inextricably linked as we seek to build prosperity and fairness across the world.
Our focus is, rightly, elsewhere at present, but Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine should serve as a reminder to us all. There was a courageous response by the Ukrainian people and united support from across Europe. Indeed, as the Minister said, Putin’s calculation that the nations of Europe would split and not support Ukraine has thankfully been proved wrong by support from the USA and others across the world. Ukraine’s fight is our fight for freedom, democracy and democratic values. We must not and cannot take them for granted. Our resolve to give Ukraine the military and political support it needs to be successful must not and will not weaken.
I was personally reminded of all of these stark facts when, last week, as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I, with others, visited Southwick Park, where much of the D- Day planning took place and where the final decision to invade was made. I am named after my uncle. He was a member of the Devonshire Regiment and No. 3 Commando. He was killed on 6 June 1944 and is buried in a cemetery in Ranville. I was reminded that he fought, with many others, both before, then and since, for freedom and democracy. He no doubt hoped that, in giving his life, those values would become the accepted form of government not only in Europe but across the globe. However, conflicts have continued. In honouring their memory, and that of others, I recount their stories in today’s debate. The struggle for the values of democracy and human rights continue, and this country needs to be at the forefront of it.
Let it ring out from this Chamber today that, whoever the next Government are, we all reaffirm our commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The differences that we sometimes have speak to the ability for us to do that within this Chamber. We need to work with others to ensure that the freedoms of democracy and the human rights that we enjoy are felt and enjoyed by other countries across the world. Working with our friends and allies, we can strengthen the international institutions upon which we all depend, making that more than just empty rhetoric but a reality. If we do that, then the words we speak in this Chamber today will echo across our country and across the globe to deliver the sort of world that we all want.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is often suggested that a week is a long time in politics. It is just eight days since His Majesty the King came and gave the gracious Speech. Since then, two of the great offices of state have changed hands, perhaps presaging some significant change to policy—it is a little difficult at this stage to know. Obviously, the King’s Speech very rarely refers in any detail to foreign or defence policy, because so little of that is subject to legislation. Occasionally—once every five years—we have an Armed Forces renewal Bill, which has some significant discussion around it, and every year we are required to renew Parliament’s commitment to the Armed Forces, which we always do. This means that there is relatively little on the legislative agenda on defence. However, in his opening words last week, His Majesty the King pointed out the context of a war in Ukraine, and there was testament to “our gallant Armed Forces”.
Across the Chamber, we hear similar words. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I very often agree on questions of defence, and, over the last few years, we have spent much time agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. In thinking about my remarks for today’s speech, although we now have a new Foreign Secretary, who is not yet able to be in his seat, I was looking forward to saying what a pleasure it was that we were still looking across the Chamber to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. Both of them have been fantastic Ministers, who take their duties as parliamentarians and as members of His Majesty’s Government very seriously. We have much appreciated the commitment and the diligence that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has given to this House but also to the Armed Forces. She has been second to none in making the Government’s commitment to the Armed Forces very clear. From these Benches, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and hope that she will bring her expertise to the Government Back Benches in the future.
I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his place and look forward to the opportunity of raising questions about His Majesty’s Armed Forces and defence accommodation. I was very pleased to hear in his speech that now, apparently, the telephone is answered by Pinnacle in 29 seconds. What I would really like to know is this. If the telephone is answered in 29 seconds, how long does it take the hard-pressed service man or woman, or more likely their spouse, to actually get an answer to their problem? Has black mould been abolished from forces accommodation? Have we really seen a change in practice or simply a few tick-box KPIs? These are the sorts of questions that the noble Earl is probably going to be hearing over the next few months, between now and the general election.
I agree with the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that it is clearly important at the start of a parliamentary Session to make our commitment to His Majesty’s Armed Forces very clear; I reiterate from these Benches as well the importance of defence. Defence is one of those issues that is probably not top of ordinary citizens’ agenda. If a survey was done asking what the three most important issues are, people might talk about a cost of living crisis, energy bills or education for their children. In the United Kingdom they are probably not going to say defence of the realm, yet defence is the first duty of the state, and for good reason.
But it has been very clear in the last two to three years that people in this country are beginning to think more about defence, as questions of conflict are becoming much more relevant within the United Kingdom. It is no longer sufficient to assume that conflicts will be in far-away places of which we know little. In recent years—I start in 2011 because I shall come back to some thoughts about what happened in the coalition—there was the Libya action in 2011, which effectively left a failed state from which small boats might be setting off, with people who are desperate to come to Europe, maybe for a better life or to seek refuge. That crisis has left a situation that is being used and abused by people traffickers.
There is also the situation in Syria, which remains a problem and in which Russia played a part. We have heard about Russia in other parts of the world, but in the Middle East it has also played a role. The Russian annexation of Crimea started a series of actions that perhaps the United Kingdom and other European countries did not take sufficiently seriously in 2014. We did from 2022. It has been part of a major commitment and I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Government for their support for Ukraine, which has been absolutely right.
Here I have a set of defence questions. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the purposes of the King’s Speech debate, because I realise that his portfolio is officially foreign affairs. We are making commitments to Ukraine; that is absolutely right. Can the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government have the resources necessary to keep their commitments going to training Ukrainian forces, supplying ammunition, and providing the resources that the Ukrainian President has repeatedly told us are needed? Ben Wallace, when he was Secretary of State for Defence—another great office of state that changed so very recently—made those commitments. Is the United Kingdom able to meet them at a time of rapid change in global security questions?
I said I was going to come back to the coalition, partly because, during that time, the then Prime Minister had a tendency to visit other countries. If there was an issue of conflict—an issue that required defence support —he was prone to saying, “We can help you. We can send some soldiers, sailors or aviators, or maybe some military intelligence”. The danger of doing that is overreach. It is a good thing to do, but do we have the resources to do it?
Why does that matter? Because the then Prime Minister who was so keen to support other countries is about to join your Lordships’ House as Foreign Secretary. Can the Minister reassure the House that, in their commitment to foreign policy, His Majesty’s Government will also take into consideration the needs of the Armed Forces, to ensure that we are not putting undue pressure on all our service personnel? We have already heard about the issues of support for the Armed Forces. Accommodation is part of that, but so is adequate opportunity to spend time with families, to ensure that people stay in the Armed Forces. The more operations we undertake, the more support we need to give the Armed Forces.
In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the Korean War. At the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance on Saturday evening, I think I heard a statement that 80,000 British service personnel served in Korea. That was at a time of conscription; now, we are looking at 73,000 British soldiers. Is that really enough? Are the Government being complacent with the number of Armed Forces personnel? Are we looking at increasing the number of reservists?
Finally, one crisis that is still unresolved is our duty to those people who served with His Majesty’s Armed Forces and taught the English language in Afghanistan—those people to whom we made commitments under the ARAP and the ACRS. There are still thousands of people in Pakistan, many of whom think they will not make it before their visas run out, as well as people who have not yet got out of Afghanistan. As a country, we still owe a duty to those people. What will His Majesty’s Government do to make sure that the vulnerable are able to come to the United Kingdom, as promised by His Majesty’s Government?
As we see our international obligations more as supporting other Governments, so we also have obligations to people who work with and for us, particularly for the British Council. If we do not provide the support that we have offered, in future people will be very reluctant to work with us. There are many things that His Majesty’s Government are getting right, but there are many questions still to be resolved.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, many threats to UK security, economic well-being and values have been identified. However, one that has gained far more traction in recent years is the threat that China poses. Although scant reference was made in the 2021 integrated review, that was remedied in the refresh update, in which China was referred to as
“an epoch-defining and systemic challenge”.
The recommendations fell into three broad categories: protect, align and engage. It seems that this still fails to spell out a coherent strategy for dealing with what are, after all, severe threats, not only to the UK but to the rules-based world order.
Strategy implies having a clear and agreed vision of where one wishes to be in relation to a serious standoff. Every action taken thereafter—whether in foreign policy, diplomacy, trade, public statements and relations, or expression of values—restates that vision explicitly and consistently. At present we have tactics, albeit broad and necessary ones, on how to protect, align and engage, but not yet a strategy. China experts have repeatedly referred to this absence of strategy. One, Charles Parton, has gone so far as to spell out the “10 Be Clear” steps to clarify relations with China, the emphasis being on recognising the need for co-operation in several areas while making it crystal clear to China where the red lines are.
I shall summarise the major threats faced by the UK, among other nations. Much of the defensive construction and militarisation is taking place on islands whose ownership is still disputed. This construction enables China to work towards control of international shipping lanes essential for global trade.
The increase in espionage, especially that surrounding developments in technology, is now widely acknowledged. MI5 warns of the dangers of illegal procurement of technology, AI and advanced research or product development. A recent Civitas report estimates that UK universities have received between £122 million and £156 million over the past seven years, £30 million of which is subject to US sanctions.
Taiwan is under constant threat, including the undermining of democratic institutions and the economy. Although experts do not believe that invasion is likely in the immediate future, China, as Taiwan’s largest export market, pursues measures to undermine the Taiwanese economy, especially in agriculture. In addition, given that China remains dependent on Taiwan for a steady supply of advanced semiconductor chips, efforts to hijack that industry continue.
These policies alone should make it clear that China most certainly has a strategy, which is to overtake the USA as the predominant world power and secure its economic position in the long term. Its tactics include a variety of ways to undermine the rules-based international order.
What might be the points of leverage or influence? Contrary to conventional views, China is bothered by international criticism and goes to some lengths to conceal its less acceptable policies. However, atrocities such as the genocide of the Uighur population continue in part because the international reactions are often contradictory, or at least inconsistent.
While AUKUS, the Five Power Defence and the Indo-Pacific Quad—which the UK has not yet joined—are all necessary alliances, more direct action is also necessary. The fear that such strong representation might adversely affect trading volumes—China is the UK’s third-largest trading partner—is not borne out by the evidence. China understands and respects strong, even hostile, statements and action, provided that its interests are protected. The UK may have an added advantage in that the PRC supposedly believes that it has special influence on US policies.
Lastly, is the US policy of strategic ambiguity with reference to Taiwan a sufficient deterrent in the eyes of the PRC? The clue lies in the word “ambiguity”. The PRC cannot be certain that any move on Taiwan would provoke an unequivocal reaction from the USA, which enables it to continue testing the boundaries. The absence of effective sanctions at the trashing of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong following the implementation of the national security laws signals weakness on the part of the UK and others, which is exploited by the PRC, while the hesitancy to monitor the intentions of Chinese scientific and technical students at UK universities opens to way to outright theft of ideas and techniques.
The strategic direction of the UK, together with nation partners, could be defined as developing an international network to maintain and strengthen the democratic system and rules-based international order. The chief methods include making it abundantly clear that any encroachment on these values and processes will be met with severe international condemnation and sanctions. There should be no room for ambiguity.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the gracious Speech set out a number of the key challenges impinging on our security and His Majesty’s Government’s intentions in addressing them. I shall focus to some degree on the fragility of the international order at present.
I suspect that many of us have an underlying anxiety about the future in terms of the potential for conflict and our ability to either forestall or manage it should it arise. However, in the perspective of much of the world we already live in an era of endemic warfare. By one count, there are 110 international or internal armed conflicts under way as I speak. Only North America is free of any armed clash, and even there the United States is facing historic challenges to its democratic norms.
Conflict is, sadly, not new, and it is tempting to say that we must simply embark on the latest round of realpolitik until things settle down. But there is a worrying recent trend to our instability. The fragility of states maintaining themselves in the face of militarism, populism or, in some cases, organised crime, and the instability of the international order itself, have been marked by a failure to maintain common norms of behaviour and the rule of law. Our contemporary treaties and international structures rely on a common acceptance of their value and an inculcation of the sorts of habits and attitudes that naturally support them, especially at times of stress. It is easy to observe international humanitarian law when you have no incentive to do otherwise.
There is nothing that justifies the attacks on Israeli citizens on 7 October, let alone the taking of hostages and the evil nature of those atrocities. But does the difficulty of military operations against Hamas positions in Gaza City allow the Israel Defense Forces to set aside some aspects of international humanitarian law to manage that difficulty? Clearly, it does not. A ceasefire in Gaza is not only to be hoped for but needs to begin now, with extended pauses for humanitarian relief, medical care and supplies, which will alleviate the ever-increasing levels of innocent suffering. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in condemning anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
There are egregious examples around the world in conflicts in Sudan, Ethiopia and Syria, in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and in other places, where aggressors have not only acted with enormous brutality but, in some cases, managed to solicit sympathy from other states. This has been due to disinformation, self-interest and even venality. But it is also because those of us who argue for a rules-based system are seen as benefiting from a global trading system that treats many people unfairly.
We cannot isolate ourselves from this, because many of the communities around the world caught up in conflict are represented in significant numbers in this country. There is a task for us here to model the norms we promote internationally. This means that we should be scrupulous in our international dealings, including our support for the European Convention on Human Rights. We need to address deep-seated issues around climate change and development.
There is now an opportunity, in the light of the Supreme Court judgment on Rwanda today. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, the Church of England continues to call for the 1951 refugee convention to be built on, through nations around the world working effectively together, so it can meet the challenges we face today, commending a 10-year strategy for tackling the refugee crisis, human trafficking and people smuggling.
But we also need to respect our own institutions. We should promote dialogue with communities here and abroad. In advance of the state visit of the President of South Korea, His Majesty the King visited New Malden the day after delivering the gracious Speech, engaging with the largest Korean community in Europe. On the evening of the gracious Speech, I commissioned Bishop Moses Yoo of the Anglican Church in Korea to be an assistant bishop in the diocese of Southwark, in order to minister to the large Korean community in south London. He was presented to the King the following day.
The focus being given to “global Britain” in our external relations is mirrored in the increasingly global identity of many of the communities of this land, not least the great metropolis of London, and Southwark, where my diocese is located. In his recognition of this, His Majesty the King is setting an example for us all to emulate in our multicultural local contexts. The fruit of this endeavour will be in building social cohesion that reflects the nation we have become.
I ask for a greater effort, in a larger and better-resourced Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to promote an unapologetic rules-based international order—one no longer on the back foot but gaining in strength.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate and, of course, my noble friend Lord Minto, who it seems has acquired an impressive knowledge of his brief in just 24 hours.
We approach this debate in a more fractious, multi-polar and dangerous world. Recent events in the Middle East have reminded us that supposedly frozen conflicts can quickly reignite, with devastating consequences. Away from the Middle East, I think of the suffering of Ukraine, of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians being driven from their homes, of civil war returning to Sudan, another coup in the Sahel and regional tensions mounting in the Indo-Pacific.
All this and more has put a heavy burden on the men and women of our diplomatic and defence establishments, and we must make sure that we give them adequate resources to do their job. Defence spending, for example, is promised to increase to 2.5% of GDP, which is very welcome, but we still do not know when.
At present, the world’s attention is, understandably, focused on events in Israel and Gaza. I do not see a conflict between, on the one hand, robustly supporting the right of Israel to defend itself against terrorists who murder, torture and kidnap innocent civilians and, on the other hand, also expecting Israel to do so, as far as possible, without causing the same suffering to innocents that they themselves have received. Secondly, Israel must have a realistic strategic purpose behind its actions—otherwise, however many thousands of Palestinians are killed in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of their resentful fellow citizens will be left, many with no employment and no hope, and the whole bloody mess will continue.
With all that is going on in the world, we must not minimise the significant ongoing challenges still posed by Russia which, as the Integrated Review Refresh stated, is
“the most acute threat to the UK’s security”.
Russia’s malign influence is felt across eastern and south-eastern Europe and the western Balkans, extending upwards into the Arctic region and the High North. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an attempt to redraw the border of Europe by force, and the war crimes that it has committed there are a rejection of civilised values. If Russia is allowed to succeed, the principles on which we have built deterrence and collective security in Europe will be seriously, perhaps fatally, undermined.
Despite heavy losses, Russia’s leadership believes its will to fight will outlast the West’s commitment to Ukraine. We must prove it wrong. I was reassured by my noble friend’s commitment from the Dispatch Box, together with the forceful words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Russia’s influence is also felt in the High North. Later this month, your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee, which I am privileged to chair, will publish a report into the UK’s policy towards the Arctic and the High North. The Arctic occupies a central place in Russian military doctrine and strategic planning, and is likely to see increased Russia-China co-operation in future. Russian grey-zone activities in the High North are on the rise. We have seen the sabotage of sub-sea data cables and gas pipelines. Pilots in Finland cannot rely on GPS to navigate because of persistent Russian GPS jamming. I am looking forward to sharing the wider findings of the committee’s report on the Arctic with this House and the Government soon. The need for western unity and international co-operation as a safeguard against Russia’s military aggression and its destabilising behaviour has never been greater.
Finally, like other noble Lords, and as the first Conservative Back-Bench speaker, I place on record my thanks to and admiration for my noble friends Lady Goldie, who stepped down yesterday as Defence Minister, and Lord Ahmad at the FCDO, who is, I am glad to say, carrying on. They have both served the country and this House superbly, and for some considerable time, which is why it is particularly disgraceful that they and 11 other Ministers in this House are not paid a salary. It is something that the Government could easily and speedily rectify if they wished to do so, and I believe it would command support across the House.
Time is short, and I, of all people, do not want to upset the Whips, so I very much look forward to hearing the views of so many experienced noble Lords in the remainder of this debate.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests and associate myself absolutely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, in relation to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.
I strongly welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to supporting the people and the Government of Ukraine. For as long as the Government’s actions match their words, they will have support across this House and elsewhere in that endeavour. I also welcome the relatively balanced approach to the situation in Israel and Gaza laid out in the gracious Speech, and I hope that the Government will continue not only to support the right of Israel to defend itself but to support humanitarian pauses and other action in the Gaza Strip.
We live in an increasingly interdependent but increasingly dangerous world, and this country needs to have both the military strength to defend our country and our values but also the soft power, to the maximum, that allows us to promote democracy and human rights and to support action on tackling extreme poverty, preventing conflict and a just transition to net zero.
I was not in the Chamber last week for the gracious Speech. I suspect it was probably quite warm: it normally is on these occasions, with everyone crowded close together in their regalia. I was in very warm conditions in northern Kenya, in Turkana county, where I was on a mission with UNICEF in advance of the nutrition summit organised by the Government for next Monday. I was therefore disappointed to see that the gracious Speech does not include, as almost every Queen’s Speech has done over the past two decades, a reference to this country’s support for international development and many of the other important initiatives that, in recent years, have had a higher priority than perhaps under this Prime Minister.
Our trip last week started in Nairobi, and I saw the direct impact of an approach to sustainable development that encourages local economies to grow and prosper and to provide sustainable jobs. The Insta factory in Nairobi is producing ready-to-use therapeutic food that is then sold commercially to the international agencies in order to feed those suffering from malnutrition around the world. It was a classic example of a local economic development serving a local need, producing ultimately sustainable development for that community and real opportunities for local people. I then saw the impact of the product the next day: in particular, a little boy called Marty who not only ripped open the packet of peanut paste and squeezed every drop he could out of it but then tore the packet open and licked the inside to get every last drop.
Marty is recovering from extreme malnutrition, as a result of that programme supported by UNICEF and others, and he is part of a wider ecosystem in Turkana county, supported by UK aid, which has, for example, reduced maternal mortality in only eight years from 1,594 deaths per 100,000 of the population to 362 in 2022. The direct impact of an integrated programme, mixing investment in water, in education, in health and in the local economy, supported by UK aid, shows just what can be done.
Unfortunately, UK aid has become increasingly unpredictable and unreliable over recent years. I do not want to open up the debate right now on the level of aid or the Government’s lack of a firm commitment to return to 0.7% of GNI, but the unpredictability and unreliability of our commitments must end with this gracious Speech and the next phase of this Government. For example, at the nutrition summit next week we need to see—along with the publication of a White Paper on the sustainable development goals, which are not even mentioned in the gracious Speech or the Prime Minister’s introduction to the attached notes—a firm commitment from the UK not only to engage and invest in international development but to become a reliable and predictable partner again. That would make the biggest difference. I hope we will see it today or on Monday.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will welcome him as Foreign Secretary, but I will never forgive Prime Minister David Cameron for the casual way that he called the Brexit referendum for party-political reasons when the country was not calling for one, the poor management of the referendum campaign and the exclusion of people crucially affected by it, such as 16 and 17 year-olds. As I recall, it was meant to end divisions within the Tory party; over seven years later, we can see how well that worked.
However, I hope that the appointment of the future Lord Cameron will continue the improvement in relations with the EU that, to be fair, James Cleverly began, such that the Windsor Framework and our re-entry to Horizon were agreed. But it is possible to seek so much more, from easing the Brexit red tape costing businesses, jobs and consumers so dearly—including people such as touring artists—to rejoining the student exchange programme Erasmus and other EU programmes valuable to our businesses, economy and civil society.
I was among members of the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House meeting French MPs this morning, who recalled that the number of French students at British universities has dropped from 13,000 to 3,000—a sorry development when soft power is so important in the modern world. Our committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the scope, in the light of the invasion of Ukraine, for greater UK-EU co-operation on security and defence as a complement to NATO. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, repeat the Labour pledge of a security pact with the EU. At least the UK has joined the European Political Community. I hope an early priority of the new Foreign Secretary will be fixing the date and agenda for the UK hosting its next meeting next year.
I am sure the new Foreign Secretary will also continue the close liaison with the EU and member states on political and military support for Ukraine, as well as on sanctions against Russia, all of which have been pretty successful. We cannot let Ukraine down. I applaud the Minister’s pledges. I am sure the Government will support the process of Ukraine’s accession to the EU.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s judgment this morning striking down the Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, we will hear a lot of bombast about pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights, even though the Supreme Court highlighted other domestic, as well as international, legal impediments to exposing asylum seekers to the risk of refoulement. I note that a lot of whatever co-operation we have with the EU in areas such as law enforcement, internal security and business data transfers is predicated on our membership of the convention.
We are due to debate next week, on a regret Motion from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, new proposed data protection regulations. Using powers in the retained EU law Act, the Government propose to replace references to EU concepts of fundamental rights and freedoms with references to the ECHR. This is already a worrying loss of some rights, but the regulations would completely collapse if we pulled out of the ECHR. That would be a loss to business.
Turning to the Israel-Gaza situation, I attended at lunchtime a screening of the footage taken from the body cameras of Hamas terrorists—and from CCTV, victims’ phones and Intercept—who participated in the horrific outrages of 7 October. I did not want to attend but I felt I had to out of respect for the victims. Let us be clear: this was not a Hamas war on Israel; it was a massacre—a pogrom—of Jews. As the Hamas terrorists celebrated the number of Jews they were killing, whose bodies they burned and mutilated, they cried, “Praise Allah. Allah is great”. This is desecration of the great religion of Islam.
While most people attending the pro-Palestinian marches in London have not expressed hatred towards Israel and/or Jews, some have. The steep rise in incidents of anti-Semitism has been appalling, and for our Jewish fellow citizens to feel frightened or uncomfortable coming into central London, or wearing visibly Jewish dress, such as the kippah, is deeply shaming. I also deplore any incidents of Islamophobia. I of course understand the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, but I would like to know how, in that case, Hamas is going to be removed from Gaza and its military capacity eradicated, as not only Israel wants. I note the US confirmation that Hamas is using the Al-Shifa hospital as an operational base.
Lastly, on a question asked many times, can the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in replying, tell us why on earth the Government will not proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I intend to get to the King’s Speech via the Guildhall, with a brief exit through Rwanda.
There was much to applaud in the Guildhall speech on Monday. I hope that the Prime Minister is right that Russia cannot win in Ukraine, and I am sure he is right to insist that we must do all we can to ensure it does not. I echo, of course, his condemnation of the appalling atrocity on 7 October and of Hamas. I am also glad that he called for “urgent” and “humanitarian pauses” in Gaza.
Some 120 countries voted in the UN for a ceasefire; I am still not quite clear why we cannot be in that number. I suppose it is because the word is deemed to imply parity of esteem and legitimacy and so cannot apply to a terrorist group. I do not know. I think most of the world simply wants the killing to stop, and it would be in Israel’s interest to listen to that, because current tactics are simply breeding new recruits for Hamas—just as the killing in Beirut 40 years ago was the making of Hezbollah. We need to help, by working on the Qatari Government, who play host to Hamas, or the Iranian Government, who are the funders of Hezbollah, or the Russians, who arm Hamas.
There is a lot of diplomacy to be done, including in Washington. We must recognise that what Washington says matters in Tel Aviv. I hope the Prime Minister has rebuilt really close relations with the White House, because relations were considerably damaged by his predecessor’s courting of the President’s political opponents, and her predecessor’s willingness to alienate both the Administration and Congress by putting the Good Friday agreement at risk. I hope we are through all that.
If I had a criticism of the Guildhall speech, it would be that it risked seeming a little hubristic. To say that we are working
“to shape the world, not be shaped by it”,
and that,
“wherever there’s a challenge, wherever there’s a threat, wherever we can promote peace and security”,
we are ready to act, risks the retort that we can speak very loudly but our stick is fairly small these days. Putin has brutally exposed the illusion of the peace dividend and we have made too many false economies on defence. The Government have done very well to help Kyiv but have yet to come clean with the country about the real cost of security in an insecure world. We are not sufficiently insured. We have to pay a higher premium. The quality of our Armed Forces may still be very high but their quantity is plainly inadequate. Our leaders need to be honest about that, so maybe less hubris.
However, the point goes wider. The King’s Speech also said:
“My Government will continue to lead action on tackling climate change … support developing countries with their energy transition, and hold other countries to their environmental commitments”.
It is true that we led on climate change, but then someone suggested that we “cut the green crap”. It is true that we led on development aid and gave it 0.7% of GDP, but we do not now, and much of what we do is spent domestically on Home Office policies. It is true we have not denounced net zero by 2050, but we have just decided to get there on a changed trajectory, meaning, in the words of the King’s Speech,
“without adding undue burdens on households”.
Therefore, we will pump out more emissions than previously planned, and once again we are not coming clean with the country. Getting there cannot be cost free. As with defence, I believe the country would respond well if the Government told it like it is.
Finally, on Rwanda and the Supreme Court ruling, the House will be relieved to hear that the new Home Secretary in the other place this afternoon did not agree with his Back Bench that the right response to the Supreme Court ruling would be to tear up treaties—the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. The new Foreign Secretary must be aware of how much reputational damage it would cost us if the Government did as advised by their Back Bench. They must know, because they saw how relations with Europe and America were poisoned when the last Prime Minister but one revealed that he had been happy to make an international agreement without ever intending to honour it. I am sure the new Foreign Secretary fully understands that pacta sunt servanda, and I hope he will ensure that the new Government will act accordingly. We are not Belarus. The convention stands for our values; let us not betray them.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by thanking the doorkeepers, the police, Black Rod and the clerks for their unfailing courtesy and good nature to me over the last year. In particular, I thank Simon Burton, the Clerk of the Parliaments, who pointed out to me after the introduction ceremony that I had moronically signed my name in my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s box rather than in my own. He did not use “moronic”, I hasten to add, but he must have thought it.
I believe it is customary to say a few words about one’s self in one’s maiden speech—something I have never really needed much encouragement to do. I had a conventional and happy middle-class upbringing in Surrey. There was one problem, in that I was expelled from school—in fact, two schools. It was drinking and climbing: I used to get drunk and climb up buildings and, quite rightly, the school decided that it would sack me before I fell off any of them. My wife later said that all I have really done in life since is to drink and social climb.
On the rest of my career, after coming down from Cambridge University, I joined the City as a merchant banker and discovered fairly soon afterwards that I was functionally innumerate, so I chucked it, or they chucked me—recollections may vary. I then started to try to write history books, and that did not start very well either. I think I have personally met pretty much everyone who bought any of my early books. Afterwards, my wife Susan, who is a very successful businesswoman, said that she was going to introduce me to a new business model, which was to try to write books about things that people wanted to read about, and that all changed.
I would like to say of the gracious Speech that the Government are to be commended for their stance on Ukraine and Israel. It is also worth pointing out that Labour should be commended on that too—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, earlier today was tremendously patriotic.
I went to Kyiv with General David Petraeus, the American general, six months ago. We were co-authoring a book. As well as going to Kyiv, we went to Bucha and Irpin. We saw the places where the Russian soldiers had massacred innocent Ukrainian civilians and tortured them in all too many cases—455 of them in Bucha alone. It is so important that we stick to the policy of continuing to help the Ukrainians up until the point when, finally, Putin recognises that the war there is unsustainable.
As far as Gaza is concerned, wars are not won by ceasefires. Humanitarian pauses are of course a good idea, but nothing must impede or hamper the Israeli Defense Forces in their operation to try to extirpate Hamas. Israel has the right to do that, and we should be on its side.
Finally, I will prove, I hope, a hard-working, attendant and zealous Member of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, speeches that follow maidens can sometimes have a formulaic quality. We say that it is a privilege, honour and pleasure, and the words issue from our vocal chords without our really stopping to ponder what they mean. Let me say with feeling that I feel very lucky and happy to be able to follow one of the most foremost historians of our generation, my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia, the author of 20 books and perhaps best known for his magisterial and monumental biography of Winston Churchill. There have been 1,012 such biographies and his was the 1,010th, but I think it is at or close to the top of almost every critic’s list, above even, dare I say, The Churchill Factor by Boris Johnson, in which the great war leader is—oddly enough, who would have thought it?—reimagined as a witty after-dinner speaker and right-wing journalist who is cruelly excluded by the Tory leadership until the crisis hits, at which point, in desperation, they send for him.
However, as young people sometimes say of pop groups, I prefer some of my noble friend’s earlier work. Given the conversation we have just been having in this debate about the recent reshuffle, it is worth noting that he has written stonking biographies of two previous Tory Foreign Secretaries who spoke from these red Benches; namely, Lord Salisbury and Lord Halifax. Sometimes, my noble friend is portrayed as a TV historian or as not completely academic, and that is monstrously unfair. His books have been translated into 28 languages. They have won 13 literary prizes. Every one of them involves original research from primary sources, including the Churchill book. He was the first historian to get the late Queen to open the royal archives so that we know what her late father, in his dutiful, dim and decent way, thought about the events of that time.
My noble friend did, however, write one slightly more frivolous book. He authored a thriller in 1994 called The Aachen Memorandum. I mention it because I have a feeling that the fictional hero is modelled on someone currently on these Benches—I will leave noble Lords opposite to try to work out which of us. I mention this book because there is something oddly prophetic in it. It is set in the future, looking back to a Brexit referendum—and this is the uncanny thing. My noble friend imagines the in/out referendum having taken place in 2015—let us remember that this book was written in 1994—and records the vote to leave as 51.86%. In reality, it was 51.83%, so he was out by only one year and 0.03%.
I will say one other thing about my noble friend. Remarkably, he is already in Hansard, although this was his maiden speech. He is in Hansard, albeit unnamed, from a debate on the Australia trade deal that took place on 9 January. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, was making a speech in her usual, consistently anti-trade way about how terrible the Australia trade deal was. I quote her:
“Let us imagine that we export cheese to Australia all that distance away, and Australia exports cheese to us. What would be the point of that?”
Then it says, “Noble Lords: Better cheese!”. Then she says:
“I hear calls from the other side of the House saying, ‘Better cheese’”.—[Official Report, 9/1/23; col. 1258.]
Is it not an extraordinary thought that if, in any way, my noble friend had been incapacitated between January and now, he would have gone down as the Member whose sole contribution to the counsels of your Lordships’ Chamber were the two words “Better cheese”? I suggested to him that he should leave it at that and not make a maiden speech. I know that he is a very modest man and was tempted, but he overcame that because he has a great deal to contribute. He is, as Henry Kissinger described him,
“a great historian who is always relevant to contemporary thinking”.
I cannot imagine a better recommendation for a place in your Lordships’ counsels than that. I welcome my noble friend.
I turn to the substance and to another great historian. I think it was Samuel Huntington who said that, although we tend to forget it in the West, the rest of the world does not forget that our values were spread by force of arms rather than force of argument. We can very easily fall into the delusion of thinking that the rest of the world came to liberal democracy because of its obvious and intrinsic superiority—but, as a matter of historical record, that is not how it happened. It turns out that these values of ours—liberty under the law, open societies—have a much shallower hold on large swathes of our planet than we would have thought possible until very recently. We saw it first in the line-up over the Russia-Ukraine conflict. To us, it may have seemed perfectly obvious that a country had been attacked without provocation by a neighbour that had promised to defend it and that a democracy, however imperfect, was invaded by an autocracy. That is not how it looked in a number of other places.
We see that same division, perhaps even more starkly, in the reaction to the crisis in Israel and Gaza. Indeed, in a lot of the global South, people put the two things together and accuse us—by which I mean the West at its widest—of stunning double standards. Your Lordships will have heard this from colleagues in other countries. I certainly have. They will say things such as, “How would you feel if Putin had ordered Ukrainian civilians to clear out of half of Ukraine?”, “How would you feel if Russia had bombed two Polish airports in the way that Israel pre-emptively bombed two Syrian ones?”, or “How would you react if Russia cut off Ukrainian energy?”. Actually, they say, “We know how you reacted to that; you called it a war crime and called for trials”.
We may have what we think are good answers to those things. We might point out that in both cases a fundamentally open and law-based society is at war with a fundamentally terrorist state, a state that has no rule of law and is actuated only by force. We might point out that there is a huge difference between the unprovoked attack on Ukraine and Israel responding to the abominations of 7 October. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, that all looks like western realpolitik dressed up in the language of moralising.
I am afraid that we have been brutally reminded of how short the reach of our values is. We talk about universal rights. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, spoke very movingly of his uncle and his belief that by fighting in 1944 he was making the world safer for democracy. For the next 70 or so years it would have seemed reasonable to assume that had happened. We saw the rule of law and open society spreading, roughly until what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, described as the significant year of 2011, when that process stalled and began to go into reverse.
We are reminded of Samuel Huntington’s truth that what we call “universal values” in reality became universal values because of a series of military victories by the English-speaking peoples and their allies. Imagine that the Second World War had ended differently. Imagine that the Cold War had ended differently. There would have been nothing universal about them then. That is why it matters that we are still prepared to defend our values with proportionate force—above all, in Ukraine. There is a road to victory in Ukraine. You can imagine the Ukrainians breaking through to the Sea of Azov, kettling the Russian garrison in Crimea and having peace. But if Russia succeeds and can wait this out and maybe get a friendlier regime in Washington DC, the West collectively will have suffered a loss of prestige that makes Suez look like a picnic. In every other continent and archipelago people will recalibrate whom they need to listen to. That noise that noble Lords hear is the melancholy long withdrawing roar of western liberty.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I extend a very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who delivered such a wonderful speech with great economy and wit; it is not often that maiden speeches have these characteristics.
I want to talk about two issues: defence and foreign affairs. When we talk about defence, I am not entirely sure that we are clear about what we are trying to defend. We cannot talk about it unless we know what it is we want to defend—against what and whom. In the process of defending what you wish to defend, is there a danger of corrupting it? For example, when we talk about defending ourselves against terrorism, the question is: what is terrorism and how do we understand it? Is it likely that we are describing people as terrorists who are simply fighting for their rights and dignity? The first thing I want to urge the House to be clear about is what we have in mind when we talk about defence. If we miscalculate what we are trying to defend in any situation, we might end up creating more problems. We cannot, for example, defend ourselves against Hamas by using Hamas-like methods, vocabulary or techniques. That is the first very simple, but important, point I would like to make.
I would now like to speak about how the recent events in Gaza have deeply affected us. What Hamas did was savage, barbaric, brutal and utterly unacceptable. The response to that by Israel was much more civilised, but nevertheless not entirely above board. There are questions about whether killing 10,000 people in the Gaza Strip in response to the loss of 1,400 people in Israel was the proper answer. What the conflict did was to damage both parties. It certainly damaged Hamas, and rightly so, but it also damaged Israel—not just physically but by affecting its reputation outside. When you go into a war or fight a conflict of this kind, you do not come out clean; you also stoop to the level of your opponent. The result, therefore, is a fine community, a highly talented community, finding itself having to depend on the sufferance of its fellow citizens. They have got to be shown to be using the markers of Jewish identity. They have to be careful in taking all those steps.
How have we come to this situation? I will raise one or two important points that we have not dealt with sufficiently. Why is this conflict one of the longest in human history? Why has it been the fiercest? Why has it become a kind of litmus test of one’s concern for the poor and marginalised? Why is your concern for equality tested by whether you care for the Palestinians or not? Why has this conflict become so central to our moral and political understanding?
Precisely because this has happened, we have reached a situation where any action or conflict involving Palestine and Israel draws out millions. It draws out all kinds of strong passions, many of which are unsustainable or unjustifiable, but are nevertheless strongly felt by those who express them.
Therefore, the question to ask is why we have come to this situation, despite all the efforts made by the high and mighty. The answer I suggest is not simply Islamic radicalism. It is at two levels. First, I do not think that the negotiations that have taken place between the Israelis and Palestinians have been conducted in good faith. Each side has hidden motives. Israel, for example, would like to see the Palestinians dispossessed and thrown out of Israel and the Palestinians would like to destroy Israel or reduce it to a minority clamouring for rights.
So it is very important that the two sides talk to each other and create a situation of accommodation and peace. Otherwise, the cycle of violence and hatred will continue. Every death engenders more hatred. Unless we find some way to terminate or tame this cycle, we will be responsible for whatever deaths occur.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Caabu, the Council for Arab-British Understanding. I welcome the noble Earl to the Dispatch Box and offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia. If he speaks as well as he writes, we will do very well out of him.
There is no shortage of issues for this debate, as we have already heard. In welcoming the future noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to the office of Foreign Secretary, I at least have hope of a more productive dialogue with the European Union, but I suspect that the most urgent issue on his agenda will continue to be the plight of the Palestinians living, or attempting to live, in Gaza.
Let me repeat the two imperatives with which I began the last time we discussed this issue. First, there is no place for anti-Semitism, either in public or private, in our country. Secondly, Israel has a right to take proportionate action to protect its citizens and territory in light of the vicious, callous and barbaric attack of Hamas. But we, in turn, are entitled to question the exercise of that right.
Proportionality depends on circumstances. Let me offer this clarification: action in self-defence must be proportionate in method, but the results of any such method should themselves be proportionate. There are terrible and continuing events by the action of Hamas, but the Government of Israel do not have carte blanche. If you rely on international law for the advantage it gives, you cannot ignore the obligation it creates in return.
It is said on behalf of the Israeli Government that the damage to life, limb and property as a result of their military action can be described as “collateral”. It does not seem collateral to those who have been injured, and even less so to those members of families where whole generations have been lost. What does the euphemism “collateral” mean? I suggest that it cannot be used to describe severe damage that is known to be inevitable. The more damage done to civilians and property in Gaza, the greater the risk that similar organisations and countries sympathetic to Hamas may seek to intervene.
We should now ask what victory will look like. Who will take responsibility for the homeless, the recovery of the injured and the rebuilding of Gaza? The cost of reconstruction, social and physical, is increased by every action of so-called “collateral damage”. A military solution will not resolve these issues, but who would come to a political conference? Hamas, if defeated, is unlikely to do so, and Israel if victorious will see no reason to do so either.
Gaza will be a wasteland—just the circumstances Hamas will try to exploit for recruitment. Would it not be an irony if the present action became a recruiting sergeant for the terrorist organisation Hamas?
The truth is that the least-damaging outcome would be a ceasefire as soon as possible. That would ensure an opportunity for hospitals to be properly serviced and their patients properly cared for—no more pictures of premature babies fighting for their lives. For the preservation of the life, limb and dignity of the Palestinians in Gaza, there is no valid option other than a ceasefire.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, His Majesty demonstrated in his gracious Speech that he fully understands the international context that we face. I welcome the noble Earl to the Dispatch Box and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I congratulate him on his brief but very moving and thoughtful speech, and his reminder of the need for victory for Ukraine.
Much has been said on the nature of conflict, with war, violence and coup d’états placing us in an era of concurrent activity, all adding up. We know that bad actors, many of whom have been mentioned in this strong debate, will continue to exploit our boundaries and seams, and find ways to pursue their intentions. We also see in Ukraine that the way we conduct operations is changing. We see in Gaza all too tragically the way in which warfare needs to be constantly updated. We see the importance of new technologies in violent application. We see the way the Russians in particular use high explosives, indiscriminately causing casualties and war crimes. We have to conclude that this era of concurrency requires a sustained effort.
The word I would add to this debate is the importance of enhancing resilience, in particular of our critical, national infrastructure. Is it not time also to discuss the ways and means we may need to defend our homeland? We have had our era of overseas operations; we also need to pay attention to our homeland. All of us are proud of our UK Armed Forces, past and present, and the way they respond to these concurrent risks and operations, but we need also to pay attention to the use of our Armed Forces to enhance our resilience and sustain our operations and our Armed Forces, both regular and reserve, and regular reserves—an old concept but my words are quite simple. After almost 50 years of military service, I can say that mass matters.
The actions of Putin, the lessons from which we must observe, and increasing ethnic tension are spreading beyond the battlefield. I must declare my interest as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the Balkans. There is hate speech in the Balkans, and that region in our own continent of Europe is awash with weapons. People there are all too ready to make analogies to their own wars of 30 years ago, when, we remind each other, almost 200,000 people died. We must therefore tackle misinformation and disinformation as a matter of national security. As we have debated in this House, we have a good integrated review and a Command Paper to go with it, but others are widening our definition of national security for us. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made it clear that we need to use all the tools we have available. We need to be creative in tackling the era of concurrency that we now face.
I commend the recent work of insurance agencies and actors in this country, using English law and working with the International Maritime Organization to find ways to move grain in significant quantity around the Black Sea. That is now part of national security. It would not have been considered so a few years ago.
The noble Earl defined competition with China. Of course, China is seeking a different world order under its new rules and norms. Many of the norms that our forebears in this place and past members of our Armed Forces fought and died to create, so that we could trade freely and enjoy freedom, are now under threat. The one I would add to the many that noble Lords have already set out is the freedom of navigation. If we lose that, we lose a lot. In the face of war and tragedy, we need to condemn the acts of terror that we have seen committed by Hamas, we all need to work on deterrence and de-escalation, but we need to be ready to sustain and to respond, and I fear it will be a long haul.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friends the Minister and Lord Roberts. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Ahmad and Lady Goldie for their tireless work. I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his role. Having served under his leadership in opposition and in government, I know he will bring experience and steadiness to guide our foreign policy through tough and unpredictable times.
Foreign and domestic policy are mutually reinforcing. Our foreign policy should always seek to create an international climate in which Britain is secure and prosperous and we can find multilateral solutions to global challenges. The foundations for this must be in an international law-based order built around law and human rights. Every foreign policy and security challenge that we face would be easier to address in a world where international law was widely respected and observed. Furthermore, our foreign policy is strongest when it has united support from across countries. In a deteriorating international environment, we need unity, not divisiveness. That requires a steadfast defence of our fundamental democratic values.
Our international influence comes with responsibility, and when and if we fall short the danger is that other nations interpret it as a green light to breach international law in more severe ways and we weaken our ability to resist such breaches. Nowhere has our commitment and that our allies to international law been more under stress than in the Israel/Gaza conflict. Let me be clear: Hamas committed an act of terror and terrorism with executions, the kidnapping of families and reported instances of sexual violence of the most horrific nature. The killing and abuse of civilians can never be justified. It is abhorrent, it is evil and it is cowardly. That is what sets us apart from Hamas and from Russia. We must always hold ourselves to a higher standard and follow international law when we exercise the right of self-defence.
If we have learned anything from the experience of fighting terrorism, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, it is that when we depart from international law, we betray our values and we do not protect our country but inflame the very problem we are trying to address. We seem to have forgotten these lessons in our response to the Gaza/Israel crisis. As we speak, Israeli military operations include disproportionate attacks on civilian targets and a deliberate policy of withholding water, electricity, fuel and humanitarian aid, none of which is defensible from a legal or moral point of view.
None of us on any side of your Lordships’ House can claim to have been taken by surprise with these tactics. They were announced in advance when Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the Israel Defense Forces would turn Gaza into rubble and when Major General Alian addressed the population of Gaza saying:
“Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water … there will only be destruction”.
I have no doubt that such statements, and their operational implications, were reported back by our diplomats, yet we still gave unquestioning political support to the operation that unfolded. By being an uncritical friend, we have helped open the door to terrible suffering, with long-term implications for peace in the region and around the world. In a way, we failed Israel. We failed Palestinian civilians as well and, dare I say, we failed the British people too.
International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan KC recently wrote that
“if there is a doubt that a civilian object has lost its protective status, the attacker must assume that it is protected”.
He noted that
“the burden of demonstrating that this protective status is lost rests with those who fire the gun, the missile, or the rocket in question”.
This is a tough task, but it is the task we set ourselves to avoid the horrors and suffering of past conflicts—the call democracies must be able to answer. Human rights and international humanitarian law are not à la carte. We do not get to choose which we like and which we do not, and in which context they apply.
The widest possible adherence to a rules-based order is the best hope we have to achieve peace, security, prosperity and the furtherance of our national interests. I know the Foreign Secretary is a strong proponent of human rights and the rule of law, and I hope he will put defence of both at the heart of his work, and of every area of our foreign policy.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble Earl, regretting the departure of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and also of course congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on what we hope will be a long period in the House.
I begin with a very dangerous thing to do in this House: the first joke mentioned during this debate. That is the very Polish saying: what is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist? A pessimist will say, “Things can’t possibly get worse”; an optimist will say, “Oh, yes they can”. That is highly apposite to the crises in Gaza and in Ukraine which we have been discussing.
There is a very profound difference between the position perhaps 30 years ago, when there was a great deal of optimism and a prevailing mood and vision of things improving with the onward march of democracy, and that of today, with the triumph of strongmen, authoritarianism and indeed illiberalism. Long-standing problems 30 years ago appeared capable of resolution, such as the end of apartheid. I was monitoring the elections in Namibia and indeed in South Africa. Also, we foresaw the end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. We were hoping too, when we had the Oslo accords, for a great new era in the Middle East. Alas, it was not so. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell; we had the end of the Soviet empire and the fragmentation of much of the Soviet Union, and indeed a rather fragile democratic Russia which sought accommodation with the West and even with NATO.
But things have changed so much since that time. We had a deal with China on Hong Kong, which appeared to guarantee a democratic future for that territory for 50 years. Now, across the world there is a crisis as old nationalisms reappear. In so far as Ukraine is concerned, after the invasion and the magnificent response, we now have a possible stalemate. Trump may well alter wholly the position of the western response, and Putin awaits a possible Trump victory.
If Trump were to prevail, we would have a Europe threatened and unable to fill that gap. The stakes are high. Clearly, if Russia were to emerge with something it could call victory, the world power balance would change. China would be emboldened in respect of Taiwan. Democracy in the Sahel has suffered as military coups prevail and there is increasing instability. Above all, the crisis in Gaza has shown the danger of a wider Middle East conflict. We have been complacent in imagining that the Abraham accords would lead to a new era and have ignored the cauldron of misery among the Palestinian people. Can anything positive emerge from the shock on Israel?
What is clearly true is that Hamas has the intent of destroying Israel. It has said it would attack Israel again and again, and it is hardly surprising that Israel looks now to Hamas, sees that it has that intention and tries to ensure that it does not have the resources to carry it out. That is the reality facing Israel. Clearly, it demands not unconditional support for Israel but recognition of its dilemma, and that it acts in a proportionate way—however we define that. The shock provides a possible opportunity for peace.
What is sad in the current mixture of crises is that we seem unwilling to look forward in terms of the climate threat, for example. The Government have clearly shown evidence of back-sliding in many key areas on climate. Among other problems is the world population increase, which does not have the prominence it deserves. I welcome what the Government are doing about the empowerment of women, but clearly, we need to do far more.
Looking back over the past 30 years, we see growing disillusion when faced with this witch’s brew of problems. Such is the profound change from the bright vision which we had 30 years ago.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too warmly welcome the noble Earl to his new appointment and join in the praise and admiration for his predecessor’s work in the Chamber and beyond. She was quite outstanding.
One much-invoked word in speaking about security issues is “strategy”, often coupled with another word, such as “defence”, “diplomatic”, “economic” or “operational”, or even “grand” strategy. A poor relation of this strategy family is the “exit” strategy. Far from being the poor relation, it should be one that is alive and well: never ignored, never allowed to wither on the vine. For clarity, by “exit”, I refer not just to military disengagements, though perhaps these are the most vital, but to a variety of situations where there has been a departure from the norm and the current state is non-sustainable and/or non-desirable.
Too often, the pressure of events, or their surprise occurrence, means that total effort is concentrated on the immediate response. At some later date, thought and planning get to focus on exit or withdrawal and its aftermath. However, early thought, ideally even before any major commitment of effort or force, should be given to that aftermath. Often, such premeditation may not be possible, but when it is, as was the case in the first Gulf War, it can be immensely invaluable. Whether government activity has been based on earlier contingency planning or rapid response to a threatening development, the record of forward thinking on how to end the deployment or involvement and manage its aftermath is sadly lacking. Going back to World War II, did the decision to insist on unconditional surrender really take enough account of the aftermath once hostilities ended? One can appreciate the strength of feelings at the time, but it left considerable burdens which only the victor powers could then support.
Since World War II, we have tended to be tied as an ally to the approach of the United States or to the collective views of NATO. Occasionally, as with Vietnam, the Government decided not to deploy forces, so no exit strategy was called for. If we had deployed, the decision on when to disengage would not have been politically possible until the US itself finally did so. Some would say that was maybe a sensible decision on our part. It underlines one of the most important considerations before getting involved: how much may we be sacrificing our own freedom of choice?
When it came to the first Gulf War, there were months between the first aircraft deployments following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 and the start of hostilities in February 1991. In early discussions with my opposite number then, General Colin Powell, it was clear that we were on the same page. Once the military objective was achieved—forcing the Iraqis out of Kuwait and sufficiently weakening the Iraqi Republican Guard and its air force that a re-invasion of Kuwait would not be possible—we should move back home. A military exit strategy was established. This was good for the hosting nation, Saudi Arabia—which was experiencing considerable qualms about hosting so many foreign forces with their different cultures, and of course the expenses that it was meeting—good for other neighbouring states, and especially good for our own forces. Regrettably, the forward planning for the aftermath of military withdrawal fell far short of what was required.
Experiences later in Iraq and then in Afghanistan lacked the clarity that should be the bedrock of exit strategies, wherever it can be achieved. The abrupt and messy departure from Kabul in 2021 was a poor end to many years of bravery and commitment.
In wondering whether Israel will have a heavy ongoing responsibility in Gaza once the shooting stops, I hope it is working too on its strategy after getting what it claims to want: the unconditional surrender by Hamas.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to sit beside my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia during his wonderful maiden speech. It is common for an author to get very irritated to have to follow another who is younger, better-looking and more intelligent, but in his case, I will make an exception.
I would like to talk about inclusion. I am a massive supporter of inclusion. It is fundamental, and look what it has done, for instance, to change the nature of our Front Benches in this House. However, I wonder why it seems that those who shout most aggressively about inclusion spend so much of their time trying to exclude others, attacking those who genuinely believe that women cannot have penises, for instance, trying to silence those silly scientists who question the logic of Just Stop Oil, or ignoring those really irritating parents who rather insist on knowing what their children are being taught.
And in respect of Jews, of course—right now, especially Jews—it is free speech, I suppose, although when it promotes violence, hatred and bloodshed, it is not free at all. It is the costliest speech imaginable.
Thank goodness, then, for safe spaces, with their shrink-wrapped minds and vacuum-packed morality, where they have never heard of McCarthyism or read any Solzhenitsyn. I was reading the Old Testament the other day—the bit about being whipped by scorpions. All that smiting and begetting is enough to turn a young man’s mind—without a single trigger warning. I do not know how I shall be able to manage.
Talking of trigger warnings, there was the 1964 election campaign in Smethwick. Forgive me, but I will not shrink from it, lest we forget it: “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour”. It turns my stomach to this day. It is almost impossible for a younger generation to believe it when you look at today’s Cabinet, for instance. As a country we have come so far and made so much progress. There is more to do, but we have become genuinely inclusive. Yet today that is under threat. Wedges are being driven deep by those who are trying to split us apart on lines of gender, sex, religion and, yes, once again, race.
About the time of the awful Smethwick election, another voice was raised: “I have a dream”, Martin Luther King told us almost exactly 60 years ago. It was one of the most magnificent speeches ever made in the English language. He said:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
What a dream—but it did not stop there. He dreamed that
“one day … little black boys and black girls will … join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers”.
It was a dream that we followed in this country with remarkable success, but now it is in danger, from political insights that go no deeper than T-shirt slogans, from hypersensitivity, from those who demand all their rights but will do none of their responsibilities, from those who think that it is all right to beat up on poppy collectors—so much for safe spaces—and from politicians on all sides who seem to go out of their way to use deliberately lurid and inflammatory language.
We should raise our voices too, and more frequently, to remind ourselves of all the many things that we have in common, so that we not only tolerate but celebrate our differences. It is called the vision thing—for a country safe not just for Jews but for Muslims, built on proper inclusion that, above all, includes the majority of Britons whose enduring common sense has made this one of the most tolerant places in the world. That will be this country’s best defence—defence in depth—and the most persuasive foreign policy of all.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, we live at a time of greater international uncertainty than we have known for many years. That places special importance on upholding the norms and assumptions of international society, informed by international law, in which the bearers of international personality are sovereign states. Indeed, in the absence of a global Executive, the well-being of that society depends on our protecting the norms and conventions that constitute international relations. At the heart of these is the doctrine of recognition and the principle that international relations depend on two states recognising each other. This amounts to each acknowledging and respecting the right of the other to govern itself across the extent of its territory. That is foundational, because it is only when two sovereign states afford each other their reciprocal dignity that international relations can really happen.
To be sure, there are other important doctrines, such as pacta sunt servanda, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. Agreements must be kept, but we cannot collapse international society into that principle abstracted from the other conventions that make international agreements a possibility—otherwise, a treaty to promote slavery or disfranchisement would be inviolable, because it would rest on an agreement between states. In truth, the operational impact and importance of pacta sunt servanda in treaty-making assume the basic integrity of the actors—sovereign states—between which those agreements are reached. If we wish to uphold the integrity of the international society of states that is definitive of world order, and on which international law is based, we have to remember that valid treaties are not just whatever two parties agree; they are agreements made in a context that respects the foundational norms or assumption on the basis of which the peace and stability of the international area depend.
For example, it states quite plainly in the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:
“Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State”.
It also states:
“Nothing … shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States … Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country”.
Lest there should be any doubt about the importance of these principles, the declaration also affirms:
“The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles”,
and:
“Where obligations arising under international agreements are in conflict with the obligations of Members of the United Nations under the Charter of the United Nations, the obligations under the Charter shall prevail”.
One of the most obvious ways in which a state, A, or a group of states, AB, can act in violation of the territorial integrity of another state, C, is to apply pressure for the right to make some of the laws over part of C, and to insist on the imposition of a customs border across C at the point at which their law ceases to have effect and the laws of C alone obtain. This is what the 27 member states of the European Union have decided to do to the United Kingdom, imposing laws made by a legislature in which we are not represented and imposing a border cutting the country in two and requiring the construction of border control posts for its enforcement.
Some might say that this is acceptable because the Parliament of the United Kingdom has agreed to embrace this humiliation entailed in the violation of its territorial integrity. However, that does not change the fact that Parliament would never have considered such an outcome had the EU not proposed it and thereby sought to disrupt the national unity and territorial integrity of our country. Nor does it make Parliament’s decision to acquiesce to this pressure anything other than a serious mistake, setting an unsettling precedent for international society that is quite unbecoming of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
In contemplating this, I greatly rejoice that no Parliament can bind its successors. I welcome the sentence in the King’s Speech about the union. We urgently need legislation to fully restore Article 6 of the Act of Union.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in welcoming the Minister to his new post, I congratulate him and wish him well. I associate myself with the words of gratitude, admiration and commendation for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and I thank her for her service. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, on an excellent maiden speech. Conscious of the short time available, I shall limit myself to a few general, diagnostic observations.
Among all too many other conflicts, this debate is taking place against the backdrop of the unspooling tragedies of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and hostilities between Hamas and Israel. On the latter, we have all been appalled by the scenes of destruction and death that we have seen over the last six weeks, including the savagery of Hamas and the wholesale abandonment of civilised norms.
I hope that the Prime Minister’s pledge in Monday’s Lord Mayor’s speech to help to create a “new political horizon” in the Middle East presages a degree of unity, at least in the UK’s response to this crisis. My honourable friend Rachel Reeves, speaking yesterday, rightly stated:
“The way to stop this killing and the way to save lives is for the international community to come together”
and for pressure to be applied to Hamas to secure the release of Israeli hostages. She also exhorted Israel to show restraint in imperilling the lives of innocent civilians.
Unity on these questions, and others in the geopolitical sphere, would conform with the stated aim of the King’s Speech: to look to the long term, making measured, strategic decisions in the interests of the nation’s security. Israel must be allowed to defeat Hamas and recover its hostages but, as politicians of all stripes in the UK, as well as the US Secretary of State, have made clear, that should not be interpreted as a licence for disproportionate, retaliatory violence against Palestinian civilians.
Of course, no international order can guarantee freedom from conflict, but the fractured global response to the crises in Eurasia and the Middle East is indicative of a deeper failure to preserve the rules-based international order. Until recently, that phrase was widely accepted as a fact rather than, as at present, a receding aspiration. When we examine Chinese intentions, Russian bellicosity and the reluctance of emergent powers in the global South formally to condemn the invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that the ebbing power of the rules-based international order is not merely a product of western decay; it is equally a product of that consensus being deliberately rejected by powers that have glimpsed the prospect of, and actively seek, an increasingly rivalrous and multipolar world.
So I am forced to ask myself whether the phrase “international community” encompasses a statement of fact at all. While the NATO powers, including Britain, showed coherence in their response to the aggression in Ukraine, the reaction from other quarters has veered between ambivalence and disinterest. India has been walking the tightrope of studied neutrality. The current Prime Minister of Pakistan describes his world view as being “every nation for itself” and responded to questions about his country’s historic defence relationship with the United States by describing China as his nation’s “all-weather friend”. In that context, and in the light of the UK’s declared Indo-Pacific tilt in foreign policy, it is also worth mentioning the first ever joint Chinese-Pakistani maritime patrols that are currently under way in the Arabian Sea.
The response from Latin America has been coloured by lingering resentment towards the West, with the US and Europe being criticised for stimulating the fighting by supplying armaments to Ukrainian forces. How can the phrase “international community” be anything other than an oxymoron at present, when we see a false moral equivalence drawn between unprovoked aggression and the provision of support for a beleaguered friendly power?
Conscious of time, I merely mention the quickening drive for de-dollarisation among the BRICS countries, the re-emergence of nuclear blackmail as a diplomatic strategy, the inability of NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine early last year and increasing tensions in the western Balkans as further symptoms of the splintering of the international community.
We are faced with a darkening international picture. There are two overlapping schisms, one between the global North and South and the other between those who subscribe to a rules-based international order and those who regard that phrase as an evasive euphemism for western hegemony. It is in the intersection between those two increasingly divergent groups that British foreign policy must direct its efforts.
These are weighty questions with which to grapple, and it is in all our interests that the newly appointed Foreign Secretary, the future Lord Cameron, is successful in engaging them. They are not insoluble. Given that the new Foreign Secretary’s recent political resurrection makes the rising of Lazarus look rather prosaic, I hope that his diplomacy on behalf of the United Kingdom meets with equal success. As Martin Griffiths, the Under-Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief at the UN, said this morning, the world is in a parlous, sorry state. It is incumbent upon us all to do what we can to change that.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, shortly before the fateful day of 7 October, I had just read Jonathan Freedland’s book The Escape Artist about the one person who managed to escape successfully from Auschwitz, and I had just started the outstanding book by my noble friend Lord Finkelstein entitled Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad. Both works tell remarkable stories about a minuscule number of exceptionally brave and strong people who managed to escape the horrors of the Holocaust physically, if not mentally. Of course, 6 million Jews did not survive, and the Jewish people swore: never again. Nearly all the world, and certainly the western world, agreed that the Jewish people should be granted the right to live in a very small part of the land that some of them had called home for some 2,000 years.
The history is relevant—I speak in front of eminent historians—to the recurrent war in the Middle East in order to understand that Israel is not prepared to take any chances against a group that declares it wants to exterminate its citizens. Those who chant “From the river to the sea”, as they are doing right now outside our House, should know that every time they chant that particular chant they stiffen the resolve of the Jewish people to ensure that the wish that that chant expresses of wiping out the Jewish state will not be allowed to take place, whatever the cost. While many who marched last weekend did so with a simplistic desire to stop pain and suffering, it is clear, as video clips testified, that some did not, calling for “Death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right”.
The conflict is most unlikely to end with a ceasefire as Hamas has made clear, through the likes of Khalil al-Hayya, that the goal of the war was not to improve life in Gaza for its inhabitants but to turn the state of war with Israel into a permanent one. Iran wants borderless open war against Israel to annihilate Israel. It may actually be that Hamas launched its atrocities against Israel without Iran’s support, as Iran would rather have waited until such time as it became a nuclear state. That is probably the only reason that Iran and Hezbollah have not joined in the war. If they had waited, it is almost certain that Iran would then have insisted on a global dimension against Jews in North and South America, Europe and, of course, here in the UK. So it was reassuring to hear in the King’s Speech that steps are going to be taken to counter anti-Semitism in this country. We will need them.
The existential threat that Israel faces requires it to eliminate Hamas as best it can. Of course, warfare cannot defeat an ideology, but it can neutralise it, if only for a while, and it can certainly neutralise its ability to commit the genocide that it seeks. So the heart-breaking pictures of innocents in Gaza killed because Hamas used them as human shields will haunt us, but we must remember that the IDF is recognised by British military experts as one of the most humane armies in the world. Every single attack is carefully considered and warnings, even as localised as specific telephone calls, mark them out as undertaking a campaign unlike any other ever undertaken anywhere in the world’s history, to try to mitigate civilian casualties.
It is now clear that Hamas stores weapons in tunnels right underneath Gaza’s al-Rantisi hospital and others—in tunnels most probably built in part by aid given to Gaza in good faith by countries such as our own and stolen by Hamas for its leaders’ benefit. I am of course pleased to see that we have offered a further £30 million of humanitarian aid, but can we be sure that that is not going to buy fuel to fire rockets and subsidise luxury living in Qatar?
I am afraid I do not believe that the two-state solution will happen in our lifetime. Rather, a more innovative structure may be required whereby Palestinians have control over nearly all aspects of their lives, but not security or defence—rather like in this country, where the devolved nations do not have their own military. Apart from my other relevant interests in the register, as your Lordships will recall, I am chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in the UK. As such, I talk to residents of East Jerusalem, and many there want to be part of the Israeli state. They want the healthcare and the benefits, and they want the vote.
It is premature to plan for two states, but there are practical steps that His Majesty’s Government can take. First, we should be offering help to both sides. We are rightly offering humanitarian help to Gazan citizens. British military personnel have outstanding skills in medical rehab for combat casualties, as I saw for myself at a Royal Marines fundraiser that I was honoured to attend last week. They are ready and able to assist Israeli soldiers injured in combat. Will my noble friend Lord Minto respond to this request?
Secondly, we need to be at the centre of the plan to rebuild Gaza. We should be talking to the Arab countries —and others who are understandably and correctly expressing sympathy for those Palestinians who are caught up in this conflict—about a reconstruction fund of some $100 billion, ideally with grants available to every citizen of Gaza to rebuild their lives, free from Hamas and Iran. Israel has created a booming economy next door to Gaza, and it can be done in Gaza under a different leadership.
Finally, the news that this House will soon have the future Lord Cameron as a Minister, and now has my noble friend Lord Roberts on our Benches, is one of the very few pieces of good news that we have had in the last month. I for one am really pleased to be welcoming him to your Lordships’ House to address the very difficult times we face ahead.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the gracious Speech. In doing so, the only interest I wish to declare is my national presidency of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association.
The great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote his classic work On War partly as a reflection on his observations on Napoleonic warfare. He formulated the concept of a trilogy: the harmonious combination of society, government and the armed forces, which, when working in unison, brought the art of warfare to its ultimate conditionality. This conditionality is best defined as national integrity, bound to a common purpose. In different ways, both Ukraine and Israel are experiencing such conditionality now.
In recent years, perhaps the closest the UK has come to such an experience was during Covid. Certainly, British society demonstrated a remarkable willingness to volunteer, at scale, to support the national response to a genuine crisis. In my last decade of service, I was very aware that the trinity in Britain was somewhat fractured. We were involved in two highly unpopular campaigns: Iraq and Afghanistan. British society undoubtedly respected its Armed Forces but was deeply concerned about the purposes to which we were being put. The Armed Forces enjoyed public sympathy rather than public support. As a result, government strategy, perhaps understandably, eventually came to focus more on damage limitation than any form of objective success in those campaigns.
In the time since our extraction from those unpopular wars, the state of the trinity in our country has taken another turn—a rather disturbing one, I believe. Simply put, and as the gracious Speech rather bears witness to, the trinity has gone missing. Why do I say this? In part, it is the absence of a compelling strategic narrative that binds the country together in a common purpose: a national conversation about the true state of a dangerous world, society’s views on and aspirations for our place in that world, and the abilities of the Armed Forces and wider society to play their roles in securing it.
As a society, we appear to live in an age increasingly defined by an obsessive fascination with completely pointless things; an age when many have defaulted to cynicism about what is truly meaningful. I credit the Government with some very good strategic thinking about the world. They know that it has become a much more actively malign and dangerous place, and they understand the need to reimagine warfare as a consistent and persistent condition between competing nations and interests, existing across a spectrum of malevolent activity, much of it below the threshold of what we have previously considered to be formalised warfare. The Government have a far better understanding of the differing vectors of warfare that embrace non-military activity—vectors that harness artificial intelligence to erode the integrity of societies, to undermine democratic process and to create alternate truth.
Government understands the need to build a more resilient society but it does not seem to want to engage with society about how to bring this about. Perhaps the most important lesson from both Ukraine and Israel is the requirement for a nation to have resilience. Fundamental to this resilience is a society that understands the realities of a dangerous world and a Government who have effective methods of mobilising national energy and human capacity to deal with it.
In the military sphere, there is a compelling need for a vibrant set of Reserve Forces, a supportive employer base, a practical volunteer offer and a practised methodology for training and mobilisation. The defence reviews of both 2010 and 2015 took cuts in the size of regular manpower. These were predicated on the growth of the Reserve Forces. In the 2015 review, a reduction in the size of the Army to 82,000 was predicated on a volunteer reserve of 30,000. In the Library material produced to support this debate, every single statistic on Armed Forces personnel levels, regular and reserve, shows a decreasing trend, bar one: the sole increase is in the number of people leaving.
The custodianship of the nation’s military capability is one of any Government’s most critical responsibilities. A healthy reserve is a vital national strategic capability. It is critical to resilience and national integrity. Therefore, can the Minister confirm to the House and the country what the future levels of Armed Forces personnel need to be? Can he confirm that they take into account the imminent revisions to NATO’s deterrent posture and the emerging concept of a UK national defence plan? Perhaps the Minister can also confirm that the Government will lose no more time in defining the specific demands they want their Reserve Forces to meet. I fear that they currently feel uncertain and in a state of neglect.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to the House, and I congratulate him on his brilliant maiden speech. As a fan of all his biographies, the one I most enjoyed and that is most relevant to this House is his magisterial biography of Lord Salisbury, the last Prime Minister to serve in this House. He gives the most brilliant insight into the Conservative mindset, which is valuable for someone like me. When it was proposed that shop workers should be given relief from having to stand up for more than five consecutive hours, Lord Salisbury said, “Change, change, aren’t things bad enough already?” That is how it seems when we look at the world order today.
Many noble Lords have referred to the optimism that we all felt 30 years ago, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and a belief, with Fukuyama, that liberal democracy was then on a triumphant path. That was not to be. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, was completely correct when he said that we pay too little attention to the strength of our arms. It may also be true that we deployed them in the wrong places in many of the developments that took place thereafter, and we now need to start putting that right in a serious way.
In particular, we need to stand resolutely behind and strengthen NATO. It was only three or four years ago that President Macron said that it was “brain-dead”, but it has now sprung into life again in Ukraine. Never has its role been more vital since Ernest Bevin’s actions led to its creation in the middle of the Berlin airlift. A war is taking place in Europe, and the largest invasion of Europe since the creation of NATO has taken place. Some 18% of Ukraine is still occupied and there have been more than 150,000 casualties in the Ukraine war, with 17,000 killed—and it is still ongoing.
It is on Ukraine that I will focus my questions to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whom we are pleased to see continuing in his place—he does a superb job in this House and he will be of great assistance to the future Lord Cameron. On my side, my noble friend Lord Coaker’s speech from the Front Bench was absolutely superb, showing the continuity in our foreign policy on our essential national interests.
I accept the point of the noble Earl, whom we also welcome, in opening the debate—namely, that we have not been distracted—but the big question in respect of Ukraine is that we are in danger of a stalemate. Over the last year, after the initial significant gains that the Ukrainian forces made, with our support, there has been little change in Ukraine in recent months. Indeed, last week, President Zelensky had to contradict his own chief of staff, who said that there was a stalemate in Ukraine. If that is the Ukrainian assessment, there is no reason why we should defy it. We are faced with a very unstable situation in the United States, and it could be that US aid is reduced over the next year.
As I see it, the issue on Ukraine—and I want to put it directly for the Minister to reply to at the end of the debate—is not that we lack consensus, because there is plenty of consensus in the House on Ukraine. It is about whether there is enough action on Ukraine and enough support for the Ukrainians. It is worth a thought experiment at the moment, given the situation we are in and the existential nature of the threat we face from this Russian invasion, whether we should double our support for the Ukrainians at the moment. The Germans have found it very difficult to rise to these challenges historically, but they have just agreed an €8 billion budget for the support of the Ukrainians next year. By my calculations, they are providing three times the military support that we are providing at the moment. Just to take tanks—there are many other measures too—we are supplying 14 Challenger tanks, while Germany is at the moment supplying 18 Leopards and has just committed to another 25.
The question that I put to the Minister is whether our support for Ukraine is sufficient. We need a breakthrough in Ukraine in the next year; if we do not get a breakthrough, we could have another frozen conflict and another type of Berlin Wall across Europe for the next generation. We need to consider urgently and with the space required, despite the other conflicts, whether a really significant upping of our support is necessary, in collaboration with our European partners. I much regretted that in the noble Earl’s speech the words “France”, “Germany” and “the European Union” did not even feature. We need the strongest possible military collaboration with our European partners; we need to consider what it will take to bring about a breakthrough in Ukraine. We have supplied £2.3 billion of aid to Ukraine this year and last. Should that be £5 billion? Should we be doubling our defence effort? What will it take for us to win? The cost of us losing could be incalculable over the next generation.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, still on the Bench there, and long may he continue.
I will in the main speak about the conflict in Gaza, but it is worth starting my remarks by reminding the House, although it does not really need reminding, of the brutal murder of men, women and children by Hamas on 7 October—1,400 innocents murdered by Hamas death squads. There were 226 partygoers going for a gig with music who were killed while enjoying life; 240 Israelis were taken hostage, and we can only pray that they will live.
Israel retaliated. Did anyone, including Hamas, think it would be otherwise? At the same time, and still to this day, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are firing rockets at Israel, and Israel’s border towns have been evacuated in the north and south. But, very sadly, the retaliation has resulted in far too many deaths and injuries, and a lack of fuel, water and food for the poor people of Gaza. A real humanitarian problem has arisen out of this conflict, not unconnected to the Hamas policy of using the people of Gaza as human shields. There is a need for a pause in hostilities to lead to a return of Israeli hostages, a ceasefire and increased humanitarian relief.
We never know what to believe. You see all these stories coming out, and you are never sure what it is. There was a picture of people fleeing from hospitals in northern Gaza and being shot down. Logic shows that Israel wanted them to flee to southern Gaza. The only people who did not want them to flee were Hamas, so logic says, “Who shot them?”.
Like all conflicts, it is not a frozen scenario. Yesterday IDF troops took control of Gaza City’s al-Rantisi hospital, and discovered and showed a weapons trove in the basement, including suicide vests, grenades, AK47 assault rifles, explosive devices and RPGs. There was evidence of the occupation in the basement of that hospital. Now troops surround Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital, and I understand that today they have entered the compound. What will they find in its basements and tunnels beneath the site? I do not know. The Israelis say that they know—and various people in hospitals deny that it is happening. We will have to wait and see.
We want a ceasefire, but an interim thing that I hope we could all agree on is that there should be a cessation of aerial bombardment, be it rockets from Hamas and Islamic Jihad or aerial bombardment from Israel—because aerial bombardment is the most unfeeling sort of war that there is, with no contact.
Moving on, we urgently need an international consensus around a plan for a post-Hamas Gaza. The plan somehow must offer an alternative political order that prevents the resurgence of Hamas and marginalises its destructive ideology. I invite noble Lords to agree that Hamas cannot be able to rule Gaza either politically or militarily. That is Israel’s aim—will the world and Members of this House agree? It has to be a Palestinian Government to secure legitimacy in Gaza and the West Bank, and in this we need the support of Arab states. We could call for a Palestinian-led technocratic Gaza interim Administration, linked to the Palestinian Authority but autonomous so as to bridge the gap between the status quo and the full reunification of the West Bank and Gaza under the Palestinian Authority —an internationally backed interim Administration to replace Hamas in Gaza, facilitate economic development and prepare for future elections. Israel needs to do its part, which includes controlling militant settlers on the West Bank. There has never been a greater need for a two-state solution. I am an optimist, and I want a two-state solution.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I have the privilege of being a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. As we have heard throughout this afternoon, the gracious Speech sets out immediate objectives for defence in this country—including supporting Israel, strengthening Ukraine and sustaining NATO.
On Israel, humanitarian aid clearly must get through, the hostages must be released and hospitals must be able to operate. That is why it is all the more outrageous that, as the European Union confirmed on Sunday, Hamas is using
“hospitals and civilians as human shields”.
For those of us like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who have now seen the sickening video footage shot by the Hamas terrorists themselves, it is tragically obvious that there can be no enduring peace until Hamas is decisively militarily removed from Gaza. Only once that has been achieved will massive reconstruction and support be possible—as, indeed, will certainly be necessary in Gaza, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, reminded us.
However, that cannot be a botched withdrawal of the type that we saw from the US leaving Afghanistan, followed almost immediately by the Taliban reasserting itself. Israel does not have that luxury; it is right next to Gaza. Germany has today proposed that the UN should oversee that process—the same UN that a fortnight ago appointed Iran to chair a UN Human Rights Council meeting. It would be of great interest if the Minister could tell us the British Government’s view of the correct approach for the post-Hamas reconstruction of Gaza.
However, in the meantime, as Timothy Garton Ash has put it in a different context, I think today’s debate is really reminding us that
“European countries need to abandon the post-Wall illusion that peace can be secured entirely by nonmilitary means”.
Nowhere, of course, is that more evident than in Ukraine, and I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has just said, commenting on the remarks of Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, General Zaluzhny, who recently issued that very salutary and controversial warning of the risk of attritional stalemate there. Again, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, it would be wonderful to hear from the Minister what enhanced support we and our allies can offer to ensure that what the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, correctly described as an epochal disaster does not befall us with that outcome in Ukraine.
More broadly, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, reminded us of the wider threats to our security. I want briefly to mention just three examples of increased risks in the maritime domain. In the past year, in the South China Sea, the Chinese Navy has been threatening not just Taiwan but the Philippines and many other nations. Just last month, we saw further interference with vital undersea gas and communications pipelines in the Baltic and a growing threat in the High North. Just last week, Russian missiles hit commercial shipping entering Odessa—as noble Lords well know, the Black Sea is to world grain supplies as the Gulf is to oil.
So, the bottom line is that we cannot allow our adversaries’ naval supremacy to threaten our allies and control world trade and prosperity. That in turn means a strong and properly resourced Royal Navy: not just ships, munitions and equipment but people. The Royal Navy is going to have an expanding need for highly specialised technical skills in engineering, cyber, logistics and nuclear. As the noble Earl said at the start, that requires more flexible careers and a so-called spectrum of service. Fortunately, a blueprint has been provided to the Government in the form of the Haythornthwaite review, mentioned by the noble Earl. I think he said that all 67 recommendations were being implemented, but Recommendation 17 is for new legislation to overcome the rigid split between regulars and reservists. Of course, such legislation was missing from the King’s Speech. Will the Minister let us know when we might expect that?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, whatever the Government’s foreign policy priorities for this Session of Parliament, we know that they can quickly be upended by unexpected global events. The world is being reshaped by ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza. The terrorist actions of Hamas on 7 October must be condemned, as we have heard several times today, and Israel’s right to self-defence must be affirmed. We must also continue to affirm that this right needs to be exercised in adherence with the principles of international humanitarian law. The violation of international humanitarian law by both sides is shocking and will, I fear, have repercussions beyond the confines of this war, as will the killing of more than 100 UN aid workers, the highest number in the UN’s history.
Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding Israel’s right to self-defence, the scale of the suffering inflicted on civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure in Gaza, including churches and other places of worship, is wrong? Israel’s actions are neither proportionate nor discriminate, and do little to advance the cause of peace. Does he also accept that the level of aid currently getting into Gaza, including fuel, is paltry and insufficient to meet humanitarian needs?
In the gracious Speech, the Government committed to supporting the cause of peace and stability in the Middle East. Noble Lords will know that this is a cause close to my heart. I noted that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referenced Iran in his opening speech. I hope that the Government will continue to call on Iran to work to reduce tensions in the Middle East. I want to see an Iran that supports and serves its own people rather than oppressing them, and I hope the Government will join me in pursuing this.
The defining challenges of our time, from conflict in the Middle East to climate breakdown, can be tackled only through long-term global co-operation. The UK must step up to its responsibilities on the world stage, not least through renewed commitments to international development programming. This year, 2023, marks the halfway point for the 2030 sustainable development goals, but the world is off track to meet almost all of them. Now is the moment for the UK to step up its commitment to the poorest and most vulnerable. There will be opportunities in the next parliamentary Session for the UK to demonstrate commitment to tackling global issues and I hope the Government will seize them; for example, by bringing the development budget back in line with the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNI, which we know the new Foreign Secretary is personally committed to.
Finally, this morning’s judgment from the Supreme Court on the Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is very welcome, though I am dismayed at the PM’s announcement that he intends to press on with the programme regardless. The court’s ruling is a timely reminder that the UK cannot export challenges to other parts of the world in an attempt to absolve itself of moral responsibility towards those seeking sanctuary on our shores. The UK can and must play a role in global events, acting as a force for stability and prosperity, in our refugee policy and our foreign policy. My colleagues and I on the Bishops’ Benches will continue focusing on aspects of how our foreign policy is driven by wider ethical, political and humanitarian factors.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate and to participate in the debate on the humble Address, my first since I joined your Lordships’ House. I refer the House to my registered interests, and specifically my roles with Index on Censorship, the Royal Navy and AJEX.
Time is short, the world is large and the challenges we face are numerous, heart-breaking, complex and all too often deadly. Dangerous global actors, from Iran to China and Russia, are making our world less safe every day and rogue states and terrorist organisations, which we have heard about in such detail tonight, are exploiting every weakness in the global order to impose their own world view. As I speak, armed conflicts are under way in at least 44 countries. Since the beginning of this year, tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost due to conflict and war. Our collective hearts break at the images we have seen emerge from Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, but devastatingly, these are not the only conflict zones.
In 2023, there have been more than 12,500 casualties in Myanmar; more than 12,000 in the Maghreb; more than 12,000 in Sudan; more than 8,500 in Somalia; more than 5,000 in Syria; more than 4,000 in Nigeria; 3,000 in Yemen; 3,000 in Ethiopia and more than 900 in Afghanistan. And of course we cannot ever forget the reported 95,000 civilians who have been killed in Ukraine and the 13,000 who have lost their lives in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. These numbers are stark, but behind each one is a family grieving and too many more to count who have been seriously injured and emotionally scarred due to armed conflict: we must never forget the human cost behind each headline.
However, war zones are not the only place where tyrants, despots and extremists are making their mark. We need only consider the plight of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, the Rohingya in Bangladesh and Myanmar, women in Iran, democracy activists in Hong Kong, and dissidents in Belarus, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba and far too many other nation states. As chief exec of Index on Censorship, I have the privilege of supporting and publishing the work of political dissidents who challenge repressive regimes around the world. They are some of the most inspirational people I have ever met and they give me hope even in the darkest of times—and right now, it is dark. But my exposure to them has graphically highlighted for me the fact that the democratic values that we in this Chamber hold so dear are not just under threat but in too many corners of the world completely disregarded.
In the last 17 years, Freedom House has documented a clear increase in repressive actions both by tyrants and by those we consider to be allies and fellow democracies. This brings me to the defence and security aspect of this debate. The constantly changing global reality is challenging the very geopolitical strategic framework within which the UK seeks to leverage influence and secure global stability. As my noble friend Lord Coaker made clear, this means we have to leverage every tool at our disposal. We need to be nimble and invest strategically. As a leading NATO partner and a P5 member, our soft and sharp power is as relevant as the hard power which enables us to fulfil our global commitments, because with these roles come significant responsibilities.
This means we need to reassert ourselves on the global stage with renewed confidence. We need not just to invest in our conventional Armed Forces—although, to be clear, we must—but to accept and embrace the fact that technology is changing the ways we engage, deter and fight. As we have seen, the war in Ukraine is being fought in five domains: land, sea, air, cyber and space. Drone warfare is now a daily reality, but it is low-tech and high volume. Space has provided key communications tools and, by the time Ukraine has won this war—because win it must—we will have much to learn.
We must also reinvest in defence diplomacy, our alliances and those institutions which promote and share a worldview anchored in democratic values. AUKUS is an incredibly important part of this process, but we need to make sure that we deliver. The BBC World Service and the British Council have never been more crucial to our global standing and our ability to offer an alternative worldview to the repression offered by tyrants. We simply cannot afford for them to have to retreat from key strategic countries due to lack of resource.
At the moment, the world can feel bleak. The onus is on all of us to find hope and provide the global leadership required to make the case for peace and our value system. Listening to tonight’s debate has given me hope that, at least in your Lordships’ Chamber, we are on the same page.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in supporting Israel’s absolute right to defend itself and condemning the barbaric atrocities of the terrorist organisation Hamas. I echo Mr Blinken in saying that it matters greatly how Israel defends itself. International law must be respected.
I will focus on a different part of the eastern Mediterranean region: the island of Cyprus. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The island of Cyprus has been divided for 60 years and the north has been under embargo for all that time. Through no fault of their own, the people of Northern Cyprus have suffered and continue to suffer exclusion from the international community and embargoes on their trade. Over the last half century, there have been many attempts at reunification in which His Majesty’s Government, as a guarantor power, have played a major supporting role. All these attempts have been based on the adoption of a bizonal, bicommunal federation, and all have failed. The Greek Cypriots continue to propose variations of this model. The Turkish Cypriots, not surprisingly, now reject this model entirely and propose instead a two-state solution, accepting what has been the de facto situation for over 50 years. Indeed, the current President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Ersin Tatar, was elected to his office on exactly this platform.
The two sides on the island appear further apart than ever, while the north becomes poorer, remains under embargo and is isolated from world trade and finance. In the Greek Cypriot south, GDP per caput stands at around $34,000. In the Turkish Cypriot north, it is half that, at around $17,000. The north’s economy depends very largely on subventions from Turkey. Turkish inflation now stands at 65%, with a consequently disastrous effect on the north’s economy.
There is also a growing threat to the distinctive Turkish Cypriot identity and culture because of the very large influx of Russians and mainland Turks. In August, the Times reported the presence of 50,000 Russians who had moved to Northern Cyprus to
“dodge President Putin’s mobilisation or avoid sanctions”.
It noted:
“Since 1974 the Turkish Cypriot population has been gradually overwhelmed by settlers from the mainland, who tend to be more nationalist and have helped to tie the island to Ankara. The Russian arrivals have swollen the population of the north by a sixth”.
In his report on the Cyprus issue of 5 July this year, the UN Secretary-General said:
“The continued absence of substantive dialogue on issues related to the peace process between the two sides continues to deepen the differences of views on the way forward … At the same time, the division between the communities also continues to grow wider”.
This was dramatically illustrated a month later by a serious clash between Turkish Cypriot security personnel and UN peacekeepers over a Turkish Cypriot attempt to build a road to connect villages divided between the territories. This was potentially a very serious incident, and it is encouraging to note how quickly and peacefully it was resolved. The Cyprus Mail noted that this was
“a perfect example of a win-win arrangement, both sides getting what they wanted out of it. There are no grounds for either to feel hard done by”.
Can the Minister say whether lessons were learned from this incident, of which I know he is aware, and its peaceful settlement may be applied to other important local difficulties?
Finally, I will raise once again the question of Ercan airport in Northern Cyprus. We could help the economically vital flow of tourists from the UK to Northern Cyprus by allowing direct flights and removing the requirement for passengers to deplane with all their baggage in Istanbul to undergo an additional round of security checks. This used to be possible until the UK Government imposed additional restrictions some years ago. I am told that these restrictions exist because the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not a recognised country. Taiwan is not a recognised country either, but direct flights from the UK and many other countries are allowed and frequent. Why is Ercan different? I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to meet to discuss a resolution to that problem. It would not solve the Cyprus problem, but it would bring some economic relief to the north and demonstrate our continued willingness to provide practical help.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, like others, I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his new position.
The Lords Library briefing for this debate states that we are
“at a particular volatile time in global affairs”,
as we have heard from others. Currently, there are around 50 active conflicts globally. The 10 largest humanitarian emergencies are in fragile or conflict-affected states. Most conflicts of the last 20 years remain unresolved—Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Libya, to name just some—with crises going from acute to chronic and often back to acute. According to UNHCR, there are around 108.4 million forcibly displaced people worldwide; 62.5 million are internally displaced, 35.3 million are refugees, 5.4 million are asylum seekers and 5.4 million other people in need of international protection. Save the Children estimates that 40% of these are children.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought conflict back to the EU’s borders and we have all watched with horror the situation unfolding in Israel and Gaza. In all these situations, so many innocent civilians are being killed, living in utter terror or having their homes and all their possessions destroyed. As we sit safely in Westminster tonight, I cannot even begin to think how that must feel. As Ernest Hemingway said,
“never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime”.
Why do we never learn the lessons of what has gone before?
Aside from the human cost, it is currently estimated that the economic cost of conflict and fragility exceeds $14.8 trillion. That equates to five times the UK’s GDP. In addition to physical conflict, there is now cyber warfare, hyper-competition, grey-zone warfare and fake news—elections interfered with by hostile actors and reputations inaccurately trashed. We live in an ever more connected world, but finding where truth lies is harder.
The environmental crisis, combined with population growth, has already resulted in increased migration and conflict over resource scarcity. Some 14 of the 25 countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are already in conflict, and 40% of the world’s population live in locations vulnerable to climate change. Poverty and desperation fuel conflict, and war zones are poor zones.
There is much talk about tackling the drivers of instability to create conflict prevention and resolution, but are we serious about that, practically? We sat back and watched the Taliban sweep across Afghanistan. Conflict disproportionately affects women. Look at Afghanistan, with every woman in any public position having to flee for her life, and Ukraine, where rape is being used as a weapon of war and children are removed to Russia to be brainwashed. The UK has led the way on the women, peace and security agenda and yet we are right now seeing the greatest global rollback on women’s rights and the progress of the last 20 years is under threat. I have highlighted before the importance of including women in peace negotiations. Involving women increases the chances of longer-lasting, more sustainable peace, yet they continue to be largely excluded. You cannot build peace by leaving out half the population. We should not have to justify women being included; we should ask the men to justify why they are excluded. Peace is more than the absence of war, and if men cannot find peace, perhaps women can. For example, the women’s groups were instrumental in helping bring an end to the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Liberia. As Ambassador Barbara Woodward highlighted at the UN Security Council,
“gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.
We are at a pivotal moment. Something must be done. Will the UK focus its leadership on helping to bring some of these conflicts to an end, enabling displaced people to return to their homes? Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the UK will support the UN Secretary-General’s recently launched New Agenda for Peace, that conflict prevention and peacebuilding will remain central to the FCDO’s foreign policy work and international development strategy, and that we will ensure that women can play their part?
I end with the words of the Dalai Lama:
“Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience … Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free”.
Lord Young of Old Windsor (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is with some trepidation I rise to address your Lordships for the first time, especially as the stopwatch is on. I am told that a noble Lord was once reputed to have said, “I used to have recurring nightmares about addressing the House of Lords, and then one day I woke up and found that I was”. I know how he felt. I open by expressing my heartfelt thanks for the warmth of all those who have welcomed me to this place, especially the parliamentary staff and the door- keepers with their courteous good cheer, and my supporters, my noble friends Lord Janvrin and Lord Kakkar, for their comradeship and wise counsel.
I was introduced into your Lordships’ House this June, having spent some 20 years in the Royal Household, chiefly as the Private Secretary to the Queen until her sad death last year, and then as Joint Principal Private Secretary to our King. I come to this House as “Lord Young of Old Windsor”. The village of Old Windsor has happy family connections for me. As children, we had Sunday excursions there, led by my late parents—my mother was an NHS nurse and my father was a consultant anaesthetist at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. The title would also have appealed to my late boss’s crossword-solving mind: old can also mean “former”, and so Old Windsor can mean—well, your Lordships get the gist.
I learned so much from Her late Majesty about the nature of public service, decency and duty, and indeed about the stabilising sanctity of our constitutional settlement, and the part played by your Lordships’ House in ensuring the tripartite balance of Commons, Lords and Crown in Parliament. I came to understand the great faith that Her Majesty, and indeed Prince Philip, had in the abilities of their son, now our King. A faith well justified, as illustrated by his first 14 months as our sovereign, including of course his most recent visit to your Lordships’ House, where Commons and Lords were assembled together to receive the gracious Speech.
One of the things closest to the heart of our late Queen, and indeed of our King, is, of course, the Commonwealth. I will make three short points of my own on this topic. First, when we talk about the benefits of the Commonwealth, this need not always be simply about the UK improving itself. The brilliance of the Commonwealth goes far beyond the so-called CANZUK countries, and I increasingly detect an appetite for building fresh and equitable relationships in areas such as trade, climate, the environment, inter- cultural links, and peace and security in a troubled world, which in the long run improves us all.
My second point is that we could do more in this country to help people understand the Commonwealth. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has eloquently pointed out, there is widespread public confusion between the number of realms, which has been naturally reducing for decades, and the number of Commonwealth member states, which is naturally increasing.
Finally, I would like to express my concern, which I know is shared by many in your Lordships’ House, about the current status of the Commonwealth Games. Compared with other international contests, these are more friendly and less commercial, give non-Olympic sports such as netball a chance to shine, and allow smaller countries the space to get their athletes on the scene. For the short term, I hope all is being done with the Commonwealth Games Federation and others to find a workable solution to allow the Games to go ahead in 2026. For the longer term, could it be time to explore fresh options for the staging of the Games, perhaps including different countries hosting different sporting events over the course of a year?
To conclude, I realise what a great privilege it is to be here, addressing your Lordships for the first time. It is my sincere hope that the experience I have gained in serving our late Queen and our King will be of some benefit to my contributions to the life and work of your Lordships’ House in the months and years to come.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has suggested, there may be formula for following a maiden speech, but it is genuinely the greatest pleasure and a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, and to congratulate him on his most excellent maiden speech, which focused quite appropriately on the importance of the Commonwealth, and to welcome him into your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that the arrival of the noble Lord in this House will be of enormous benefit to our deliberations. After an early career with Barclays Bank, via a couple of years advising opposition shadow Ministers, the noble Lord then worked in the television media industry, first with Granada and later with ITV. In 2004, he began 19 years working in the Royal Household, first as Assistant Private Secretary then Deputy Private Secretary, and in 2017 he became the Private Secretary to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. These years covered the noble Lord’s key role in the very successful state visit to Ireland; planning for the Diamond and Platinum Jubilees of our late Queen; culminating in the sadness of Her late Majesty’s death, the state funeral and the proclamation of His Majesty King Charles III. In his last months in office, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, worked jointly with Sir Clive Alderton to ensure a smooth succession within our monarchy. I have no doubt that our House will benefit hugely from the noble Lord’s insights into constitutional and other important matters.
It is also with great pleasure that I note His Majesty stated in the gracious Speech:
“My Government will continue to champion security around the world, to invest in our gallant Armed Forces and to support veterans”.
This very clear statement of intent is of course to be most warmly welcomed, but the live debate is how all this is to be delivered.
There is no shortage of issues to be championed around the world—Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen and Armenia, to name but five. This Government’s record of support for veterans is significant: the establishment of the Office of Veterans’ Affairs, the appointment of a Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs to sit in the Cabinet, and inserting a question into the last national census to determine the number of veterans in this country. All this is very positive and to be warmly welcomed.
My concern today is with the commitment
“to invest in our gallant Armed Forces”.
“Gallant” they most certainly are, but what about the level of investment? Of course, there are very many calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend more on this or that issue and, as we approach a general election, we often hear the refrain, “There are no votes in defence”. However, as we approach this election, I am not so sure that that mantra holds quite so true. We can debate whether the current international environment is the most dangerous it has been since 1939. However, whether true or not, we can rightly observe that our world is precarious: a war in Europe, a war in the Middle East, conflicts in Africa and deep tensions around Taiwan, compounded by migratory pressures as a consequence of climate change and an inequitable distribution of wealth in the world.
The previous Secretary of State for Defence argued passionately for a greater share of overall GDP to be spent on defence, and with some success. However, the increases that he managed to secure have been largely swallowed up by inflation, the deficits in the defence equipment programme and the huge costs of replacing our nuclear deterrent—a cost that previously sat outside the defence budget, being regarded as a core national capability. Today, the Ministry of Defence must absorb the nuclear replacement costs at the expense of our conventional capabilities.
Technology is, of course, the way forward but the disappointing fact of life for Chancellors of the Exchequer to accept is that new technology does not fully replace older technologies; one complements the other. The number of clubs in the golf bag grows—replacement is not on a one-for-one basis. If we need a vivid demonstration of this, we need look no further than the bloody close- quarter fighting going on in Ukraine and in Gaza City.
Once again, I make the case for increased investment in our overall defence budget and especially in our land forces. The current Chief of the General Staff and his senior officers are making the very best of the resources that have been made available to them, and I congratulate them on this, but they and other commentators know that the level of investment in our land forces is insufficient. We would not be upgrading only 148 Challenger 2 tanks or taking out of service the Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicles were more money to be available, not to mention the depletion of war stocks of ammunition, largely gifted to Ukraine. Yes, there is more money in the future programme later in the decade but today only 20% of the future programmes are committed to contract, and the remainder stand vulnerable to reduced or cancelled funding.
In the early 1930s, history shows that there were no votes in defence, but in 1939, when faced with a rising threat in Europe, we knew that we had begun to rearm too late. Our Army was defeated on the battlefield in May and June 1940. Today, there is not just a threat to our security in Europe but a proven aggressor in Europe. In 1935, we spent 3% of our GDP on defence. In 1939, when we had realised our mistake, the figure rose to 18%, and by 1940, when we were fighting for our very survival, it was 46%. Today, we spend less than 2.4% on defence. Are we doomed to let history repeat itself?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on foreign affairs and defence. I will briefly mention how pleased I was to be in the Chamber for the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Young; both were excellent, and it is wonderful to have them in the House. May I also say how pleased I was to see the perhaps “remaiden speech” of the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, now that he has been freed from the confines of the Whips’ Office? I want to talk about the importance of south-east Asia because I am the chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, for my sins, having taken over from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, when she was put on the Front Bench.
I want to begin briefly by putting on record my strong support for Israel following the start of the Israel-Gaza conflict. It is my unequivocal view that Israel has been subject to the most horrific terrorist attack that we have seen perhaps since 9/11, with the death of 1,400 innocent Israeli citizens. I do not want to play some macabre game about who has suffered worst from terrorist attacks, but this is probably the worst terrorist attack the world has seen for quite some time. My mother is Jewish, although I was brought up as an Anglican, and I have distant relatives who live in Israel, who I was lucky to meet just over a decade ago when I went to Israel as a Minister. In fact, they lived on Kibbutz Be’eri, and one of them had to hide for 12 hours but luckily survived, so this feels very close to home.
I feel very strongly that Israel has the right to defend herself and that the siren calls for a ceasefire are utterly misleading. Peace is a long way away; I would not say that we should not strive for it, but we should not use British influence to try to help it along the way. One thing I have felt even more strongly about than I thought I ever would is watching what is happening on our own shores and the isolation of the Jewish community in this country. Never have I felt more strongly that Israel has a right to exist and that it is an absolute necessity that it exists.
I want to talk now about perhaps a more mainstream issue, which is our role in south-east Asia and the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. South-east Asia—Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore and five other countries—is one of the most economically dynamic areas of the world; it has grown by 4% or 5% this year and will continue to grow economically for many years to come. We have an enormous trade relationship with south-east Asia, some £46.5 billion. Our trade with south-east Asia is bigger than our trade with India or with Japan, and double our trade with Canada. It is an enormously important and growing region with almost 700 million people, half of them under 30.
I was lucky enough to attend the ASEAN Business and Investment Summit recently in Jakarta, and the focus of those 10 nations on their economic growth, particularly on digital, is very important. Britain has a fantastic record of engagement over the last few years. We have of course joined the CPTPP—which is one of the worst acronyms you could possibly dream up for a trade organisation. In fact, I had to google it, as I suddenly went blank when I tried to remember what it stood for. It stands for—I think Justin Trudeau is responsible for this—the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Not all members of ASEAN are members of it, but we are. In fact, we are the only nation without a Pacific coastline that is a member of the CPTPP. That is a real achievement. We are the first ASEAN dialogue partner for 25 years and we now have an ASEAN ambassador, first appointed in 2019; we recently appointed Sarah Tiffin, who is excellent, as our new ASEAN ambassador. It is therefore a huge opportunity at every level. I urge our wonderful Front Bench, who have rightly been praised to the heights for their excellence—the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the incoming Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, who I think was the first Prime Minister to visit Vietnam since the Vietnam War—to continue their relentless focus on this important region.
As a former Culture Minister, I will conclude by talking about the importance of soft power. One of the things that I have seen when I have been out to south-east Asia is that people will sometimes come up to you and say, “Whatever you do in our region, I would say to you that the Chevening scholarships—the opportunity for high-flying young people to study with a scholarship under the auspices of the Foreign Office in the United Kingdom—is without parallel and hugely welcomed”. Therefore, the importance of focusing on the small things, the minor things that might seem unimportant such as Chevening scholarships and the work of the British Council, is something which I hope our Foreign Office will not lose sight of.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and to welcome the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Young. I hope that they, like me, will welcome the degree of unity that we often find across this House. I used to have arguments with Lord Geoffrey Howe, who used to say to me that I ought to be more contentious and pick arguments so we could get to the bottom of things. I used to say to him, “Tell me what you would like the argument about, we’ll rehearse one and then we can play it out in your Lordships’ House”.
I would guess that there are few United Kingdom Jewish families without relatives who are caught up in the unfolding tragedy in Israel and Gaza, and I am no exception to that. The solidarity across this House in the face of the events and the growth, which is absolutely manifest, in domestic anti-Semitism, the unity that we have and the way in which it has been expressed, have been inspiring and I am deeply grateful for that, just as I am grateful when the same comments are made about Islamophobia and our need to deal with it.
Hamas has created this catastrophe, assisted by Iran and Russia—but it created it, and the impact of the barbaric terrorist attack on 7 October, in which fellow British citizens were killed, just as there are fellow British citizens abducted as hostages. We want them back. The problem cannot be overstated. About 1,200 to 1,400 babies, children, families and old folk were butchered, overwhelmingly on the grounds that they were Jews. It made no difference to the Hamas terrorists if you were Thai or of any other nationality. On the day, they burned people alive, dismembered them and filmed them in their agony—and some of us, sadly, have seen those films.
To understand the scale of the shock that there has been to the community which I come from—I know numbers tell only part of the story—on 9 November 1938, almost an anniversary, the Kristallnacht pogrom took 91 Jewish lives. On 7 October, it was 13 times worse, and if you pro rata it, well over 100 times worse. This has to be central to our understanding of why people feel as they do. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships’ House that I feel a lot of personal fear—I do not pretend that I do—but I tell you now that I will not let my daughter go into central London on her own, although it is her home town, because I fear for her.
That, of course, is just the start of the horror that Hamas has caused, and we have to able to hold two contrasting thoughts in our heads at once, although it is not always easy: this is not a monochrome tragedy. The babies and civilians in Gaza are also lives taken—invaluable lives and futures destroyed—and when anybody uses the words “human shields”, they do well to remember that the word “human” is at the beginning of that phrase. Hamas is monstrous, but those who are rightly battling to free the 240 hostages have to remember that the shields are human. They have not chosen to be shields, they are not simply collateral damage and they need fuel, water, food and medicines delivered consistently through humanitarian pauses and safe routes. It is quite right that Israel should try to defang Hamas. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made the point earlier that it was essential to know how. It is also right to defang the settlers on the West Bank who are so intent on not allowing Palestinian communities to develop their own political institutions.
I think there are other things we can do. We could certainly starve Hamas of some of the money that is rolling through the cryptocurrency world, which it is possible to regulate and stop. That hidden and illicit money is there. Plainly, this cannot be allowed to be a mechanism for terrorists to regroup and repeat their violence and, incidentally, nor does it excuse the grotesque threat by a senior Israeli Minister to use nuclear weapons in the region. It is high time for a political initiative, and for us that political solution has always involved the two viable states being created. I am sure that that is the right path, and I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, when he says it is not.
We need to grasp that political discussions must involve people with at least a basic view, which Hamas will never be able to accept, I know, and will never discuss in the form of a peace treaty—but then nor will Mr Netanyahu. He is rigidly antagonistic, and his Government alliance is even worse. Some adversaries, of course, have found a capability to talk about peace, whatever the precedents, but I must say that neither of these leaderships can. Both abhor a two-state solution, and we need to find a way to talk to others.
My closing comments—I am aware of the time—are that, throughout my adult life, I have counted on the architecture of our relationship with the United States. I think it is absolutely fundamental. As many have said today, NATO is fundamental, and Five Eyes is fundamental to our well-being. I believe that President Biden will be re-elected, but it is possible that he will not. I did not believe that President Trump could beat Hillary Clinton—which shows what I know. If he is elected, almost all of that architecture is liable to be destroyed, and I ask the Government what kind of contingency thinking they are doing to ensure that we have reliable alliances on which we can depend and where our defence is sacrosanct and durable, because, if we cannot plan for that possibility, I fear very greatly for where we will end up.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Minto and Lady Goldie, and I join your Lordships in warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia on their excellent maiden speeches.
In my remarks today, I will touch on three themes: within international communities, the role of improved education to induce and structure peace and stability; the current means for achieving that purpose; and the ways in which the United Kingdom and our Government can assist their delivery. Here, we are fortunate to continue to operate against the background of core actions and the solid accomplishments of the British Council over the past eight decades, these having been sponsored from the outset by our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
If there is a consensus on the desirability of peace and stability, no doubt all conflicts, not least those now forming part of the daily news, reflect a paradox: not so much that they are happening at all, yet more to the point, they do so alongside an increasing concordat that they should not even be allowed to begin, instead being prevented and eclipsed through the far greater muscular strength of a shared priority agenda, which in the first place and at all times is there to safeguard democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That point was also emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friends Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lord Vaizey of Didcot.
Only a few weeks ago, on 29 September of this year, the Standing Conference of Education Ministers of the Council of Europe agreed and produced a written resolution, The Transformative Power of Education: Universal Values and Civic Renewal. This resolution, while recognising the undermining political influences of populism and authoritarian nationalism, also highlights the adverse and disruptive impact caused by crises upon large numbers of learners. In addition, it stresses the disadvantage affecting countless groups of people ranging from girls and women, students with disability and special needs, learners living in remote areas, refugees and asylum seekers, to those experiencing discrimination against them emanating from a number of pretexts and prejudices.
This is a robust and useful intervention by the 46-state affiliation of the Council of Europe. Here I declare an interest as recent chairman of its Committee for Culture and Education, and I am particularly glad that today’s debate will be wound up by my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who, along with the Prime Minister, when attending the Council of Europe’s summit meeting this May in Iceland, reaffirmed the Government’s support and gratitude for the soft power capacity of this institution, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and others have also implied, to contribute ever more constructively towards peace and stability both within and beyond Europe.
In that connection, its recent resolution on education equally points to the huge scope, already proven and accepted, of digital technologies and how these can facilitate online education programmes to reach out through the world not only to those in difficulty and under pressure but also to millions of others eager for many branches and subjects of knowledge, as well as for the acquisition of competitive skills easily available to us in the United States or in the majority of our own European countries but often, for various reasons, denied to so many elsewhere.
However, to a great extent the international delivery potential of online education programmes, in covering all relevant subjects and studies within the humanities, science and technologies, is thus also well placed to fill and redress any gaps in teaching and deficiencies in knowledge provision. To encourage the consensus of education as an international delivery responsibility, I have a Private Member’s Bill on international higher education and research. This morning I chaired a parliamentary conference on education as a human right and a cornerstone for any democratic society.
During its G7 presidency in 2021, the United Kingdom gave a commitment to promote education in the third world and elsewhere, in countries where education systems do not fully operate. What actions have the Government taken since then? Which combined initiatives are in progress? Can my noble friend affirm that such G7 plans are being clearly designed and carried out so that they contribute towards building up the strength of international communities themselves?
Ukraine, where 7 million people from the east of the country are displaced within the west, already provides its own excellent example of education good practice in difficult circumstances. Thousands of displaced children are taught daily within improvised buildings protected by air raid shelters. The teachers make use of online programmes. Thereby a good balance is maintained in two respects. The children are together to interact with each other and their teacher in a normal classroom environment, yet the teacher, at his or her discretion, is able to make use of high-quality online learning programmes.
Competent and timely international delivery of education programmes reflects the need for public/private partnership. In the city of Dundee, the online games industry works with universities. Increasingly too, and to progress their own employment recruitment, most UK sectors of industry are motivated to support good education. Does my noble friend the Minister concur that education deliveries through public/private partnerships are cost effective, punctual and of sustained quality? If so, what steps are the Government taking to advance these partnerships?
Another consideration is that of international education partnerships, whether at school or university level. Clearly, these stand to benefit associated communities within cities and regions. One example is the current academic partnership of joint research into green energy between the Scottish University of the Highlands and Islands in the United Kingdom and the University of Zadar in Croatia. Having helped to put this together, I declare an interest as current chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Croatia. What steps are the Government now taking actively to encourage similar partnerships in the context of the recently revised Horizon scheme?
Enhanced prospects for world peace will derive from much better education and competitive skills opportunities at grass roots and within all international communities. Given that G7 countries have already embraced that objective, the United Kingdom—in its own interest and that of others—must now help to ensure that this objective is properly carried out.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I am also pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in his position after the reshuffle.
It was a pleasure to listen to the first King’s Speech by His Majesty King Charles III. This year it coincided with Remembrance Week, which reminds us all of the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for our safe future, leaving their own families and loved ones to face the hard reality of post-war devastation, hardships and insecurity. My own family, which lived in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, was among those that suffered the human loss, hardship and misery of the Second World War. My late father was 15 when the war began and his newly wed elder brother, Allah Ditta, joined the British Army to defend the Crown. Allah Ditta was the only breadwinner for the family of 10.
In 1941 the family received the last letter from my uncle, sent from the Port of Karachi, saying that he was about to go on a mission and would write again soon. Instead, from 1942 the Army periodically wrote to his wife asking whether she had heard from him or knew his whereabouts, as he had gone missing. This added to the family’s agony and pain, leaving my father to take the financial burden and the responsibility of their well-being. Lack of sufficient income and medical care, and the smallpox epidemic in the area, resulted in hunger, malnutrition and the death of two of his younger brothers, while Uncle Ditta’s wife was blinded by smallpox.
Finally, when the war ended, our family was informed by the British Army that it could now confirm that in 1941 a group of British soldiers including Allah Ditta was ambushed by Japanese forces during a patrol duty in the state of Rakhine in Burma. The Army did not know about the incident or the whereabouts of the missing soldiers until close to the end of the war in 1945, when a rescue operation was conducted for the release of these prisoners. Sadly, my uncle, Allah Ditta, had died during the rescue operation. The news came as a bombshell to the family, leaving his mother, his blinded wife and the rest of the family in a shock and trauma that left scars in their memories for the rest of their lives.
In 2001, 56 years later, we came to know, through research done by my brother, that my uncle was remembered on a panel at the Commonwealth war graves site in Rangoon, Burma. That year I accompanied my father to the memorial in Rangoon, which provided the long overdue closure that my father was yearning for. After the war, my family witnessed the partition of India, the war in Kashmir in 1948 to 1949, the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971 and the oppression and human loss in Indian-held Kashmir right up to now. Wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine have caused huge human disasters, killing millions of people. Having watched wars, bloodshed and human suffering so closely makes me a stronger advocate for peace.
As we speak, the war in Gaza and Israel has become one of the deadliest wars of our lifetime. Following the terrorist attacks by Hamas on 7 October, hundreds of people, including women and children, are being killed in residential blocks, schools, mosques, churches and hospitals. Even water, medicine and fuel are not allowed into Gaza by Israel. This is a human catastrophe and it is against international law. This is happening while world leaders are playing with words.
I strongly believe that there is no military solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict. The current situation in Gaza and Israel requires an immediate ceasefire to address the humanitarian catastrophe. The call for a ceasefire is backed by multiple UN agencies, nearly 700 NGOs globally, Pope Francis, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, more than 250 British lawyers—including eminent Jewish lawyers—120 countries that voted in favour of the UN General Assembly motion and 76% of the British public. A ceasefire should not be the end goal in itself but a chance to end the violence, ensure unfettered humanitarian assistance, get the hostages released and begin the process for a new political reality for Palestine.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and my noble friend Lord Young on their outstanding maiden speeches, each achieved in less than five minutes. I also welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his new role.
I wish to focus my brief comments on some of the major challenges facing southern Africa. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Young drew reference to the importance of the Commonwealth. It is noteworthy that His Majesty’s first Commonwealth state visit was to Kenya, last month. Many countries in southern Africa face challenges relating to not just political stability but governance and the consolidation of democratic institutions. Issues such as weak governance, corruption —in many cases, rampant corruption—and contested elections pose a major threat for internal stability. There is also the growing risk of unrest.
In 2021, we celebrated the election of President Hichilema; he is known otherwise as HH. It was a great day for Zambia: it heralded a move towards more responsive and responsible government. In August this year, we had the election in Zimbabwe, where President Mnangagwa and the ZANU-PF were re-elected in a highly contentious election marred by accusations of vote rigging and disregard for human rights. This morning, I was fortunate—along with a couple of colleagues—to have an extra meeting with the new British ambassador to Zimbabwe. The election has resulted in heightened political tensions in the country, and the uncertainty and unrest have contributed to a sense of instability, which is impacting investor confidence and economic growth prospects. The role of the military post the election has also been a source of concern for many observers. What measures can His Majesty’s Government take with our international partners to call for an all-party conference on Zimbabwe to try to reach an inclusive compromise road map for the economic and political sustainability of the country?
Next year, there will be a general election in South Africa, a country where I spent 28 very happy years. We hope that the election will reinvigorate its democracy, but I fear that it will compound the trials it already faces. Many believe that President Ramaphosa has literally fallen asleep behind the wheel. There are, unfortunately, growing concerns around rampant corruption: none of the findings of the Zondo Commission have been followed up with any prosecutions. The geopolitical implications of South Africa’s joint naval exercises with China and Russia earlier this year, coupled with the shipment of arms from Simon’s Town to Russia, require our earnest attention. Such activities bring into question the strategic direction South Africa is taking and the potential shift in the balance of power in the region. The Eskom energy crisis, with extensive power outages, is symptomatic of the larger infrastructure problem. Load shedding is not just an inconvenience but a significant barrier to economic growth and development. The scarcity of clean water and the crisis in the healthcare sector have, sadly, culminated in a brain drain, leaving behind a vacuum of expertise and leadership.
On a brighter note—I must mention this—the Springbok triumph in the Rugby World Cup has been a force for unity in the country and stands in stark contrast to the current state of service delivery. If only the South African Government could emulate the unity and execution skills of the Springbok captain, Siya Kolisi, the country would have boundless potential. The recent BRICS summit in Johannesburg demonstrates South Africa’s continuing relevance on the world stage.
I conclude by saying that, as we deliberate on our foreign policy and the strategic direction of our diplomatic efforts, let us be guided by the principles of constructive engagement. After listening to the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I add that we need to embrace inclusion. We need to work in partnership with South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia and the wider African continent to support the institutions of democracy, uphold human rights and foster sustainable development.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Liel Hetzroni was 12 years old. She and her twin brother were murdered. Her grandfather was slaughtered. It took 38 days to identify her remains. A family torn apart, perhaps irretrievably. No burial was possible, so horrific was this murder, so a funeral took place where her toys were buried. Twelve years old—and there are hostages much younger enslaved today. Free the hostages. Free the hostages. Free the hostages. In every speech, on every platform, that should be the first, the second and the last demand. Free the hostages.
We are parliamentarians. It is our duty to create the rainbow through which those shrouded by the dark clouds that encircle parts of our nation can emerge. I will therefore be bringing forward new opportunities for us, the parliamentarians, to stand up for and alongside our Jewish communities. We will not abandon them and leave them alone; nor will we accept any anti-Muslim racism in our country for our people. One country, many communities, protecting and protected against hatred. The time will come, we hope and pray, with every hostage released and Hamas destroyed, when we have the opportunity—no, the obligation—to create a lasting stability of economic prosperity and thereby peace.
Our Arab friends in different states will be there in different but critical ways. It will need an Israeli leadership and a Palestinian leadership with vision, wisdom and courage. Whatever form our next Government take, with whichever people or party, we have a unique and important role to be in the middle of the peacebuilding: with our history, our traditions and our church structures. We have no choice but to give this our top priority: a two-state solution, Israel entirely secure, a Palestinian state independently economically viable. Despite the complexities, the vested interests and the enmities, it is our duty—now and tomorrow—to step up to the mark, and to then be prominent at the table when the time comes, as it will.
The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre got it right. All of us have within us some prejudice, but the question is whether we are brave enough to challenge ourselves: to see things not only through our own eyes; to hear things not just through our own ears; and to live lives that we have not lived.
The definition of leadership is to challenge ignorance and prejudice and to challenge ourselves. The skill of leadership is to create political constructs that empower and enlighten—and we are, all of us, in our tiny way, as parliamentarians, the definition of leaders.
Our Muslim communities have been abused, demeaned and vilified. Our Jewish communities, already traumatised by the incomprehensible nature of the murder of their family and friends, now fear a cacophony of hatred. Let us say: we have your backs; we will not be bystanders. The only question for our two Houses of Parliament is how overwhelming and permanent that solidarity will be. It is now time for us all to stand up and be counted.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my two new colleagues to the House of Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Roberts—both of whose speeches I enjoyed enormously. I also welcome the noble Earl to his role and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for all her kindness and work with us, especially the meetings on many issues on which I and others work. I hope to see her here again soon. I am very pleased that my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is still in place and look forward to working with him.
I will raise the vital issue of women’s involvement in foreign policy and defence. I pay tribute to those suffering in all conflicts around the world and draw attention to the fact that women and girls suffer the damages of war greatly, both during and after the conflict. That is why we must acknowledge the vital role of women in shaping and influencing foreign policy and defence.
It is imperative that we recognise and harness the immense potential that lies within the talents, prospects and capabilities of female citizens. Over the years, we have witnessed remarkable strides towards gender equality in various spheres of society, including politics and the Armed Forces. However, as we evaluate the landscape of foreign policy and defence, it becomes evident that there is still much ground to cover. It is our duty to ensure that the voices and contributions of women are not only acknowledged but actively integrated into the decision-making processes that shape our national security and global engagements, at every level.
I bring this topic to you today, a few weeks after the release of the 2023 Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security index. The index draws on recognised data sources to measure women’s inclusion, justice, peace and security around the world, using 13 indicators ranging from education and employment to laws and organised violence. The United Kingdom scored 27th place out of 177 countries ranked in the index.
The index gives some stark reminders that must be held at the forefront of the Government’s mind when they consider foreign policy actions, especially in relation to the unfolding situations that we see in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, and everywhere else around the world afflicted by war. Women’s involvement in peace processes is vital, as is meaningful economic support for women, their education, business endeavours and health. Peace settlements that invite women to the table are more likely to endure, and women are more likely to advocate for policies that benefit all society, such as much better healthcare and education systems, and investment. Societies where women are doing well are more peaceful, democratic and prosperous, and are better prepared to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the events that took place in summer 2021, Afghanistan sits at the bottom of the Georgetown index on all matters relating to women’s safety, security and access to justice. Since the reinstatement of the Taliban’s brutal regime, women have been forced to stop working and to cease education, and have no protection from male violence. Despite the eruption of new, horrific conflicts, we cannot let women in Afghanistan be forgotten in their most desperate need, at a time like this.
Conflict and fragility have the most devastating effects on the lives of women. In all the fragile states of the world, one in five women experience intimate partner violence, and maternal mortality rates stand at 550 for every 100,000 live births—more than double the global average of 212. This is why, as we move forward into 2024 and beyond, and as the Government and nation seek to reaffirm our position in relation to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, to Gaza and Israel, and to every other instance of interstate and intrastate warfare, we must have the safety and security of women at the heart of our aims.
This is not even only for the sake of the women themselves. There are strong, proven correlations between women’s peace and security and other crucial matters, such as human development, climate change resilience and the likelihood of sustainable peace. All these attributes, essential to human health and well-being, are more related to women’s issues than to a country’s GDP, but we spend more time talking about post-war economics and development than we do trying to protect women and girls.
Women’s rights are the backbone of resilient, peaceful and democratic societies. It is now time for the Government to honour the promises they have made in this House to protect the rights and freedoms of women around the world. The emergence of new threats, such as escalating political violence, the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence and the climate crisis, threaten to stall or even roll back the strides we have made in recent decades to protect women and girls. It is vital that we maintain a correct course and continue to support women’s participation at all levels of society, around the world, including at the peace table, in all discussions and in all military activities. I would also like the Government to look once again at the speech made a few years ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on a feminist foreign policy. I hope that they take that forward as part of their plans.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the gracious Speech made scant reference to the Middle East conflict but what it said was even-handed. Your Lordships may feel that what I am about to suggest is unrealistic and too ambitious. However, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, has been very positive in support when I outlined these ideas previously. If anyone can see it through, he can.
As someone deeply tied to my Jewish heritage, the ongoing conflict in my other homeland, Israel, deeply troubles me. However, my concern extends to those affected in both Israel and the whole of Palestine. In supporting the cause for peace and stability in the Middle East, rather than take sides in this debate, I will offer suggestions on how to move forward positively, peacefully and with compassion and respect for all.
There is a need, first, for hope and respect for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. We need to arrive at a position where the nations of the world, including the United Kingdom, are ready to acknowledge and recognise the state of Palestine alongside Israel.
Secondly, we should agree to create a long-term plan for those two nations, Palestine and Israel, to enjoy a future where everyone benefits. We in the United Kingdom can help as an honest broker, by hosting a month-long conference to talk about a positive future rather than argue about the past. We could invite parties here to discuss this in a positive, constructive and pragmatic way, with the UK playing a co-ordinating role. A safe and appropriate location for such a conference would be here, in the Palace of Westminster, and/or Highgrove and/or St James’s Palace.
Then, for example, Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia could work with Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians and other countries in the region to build a huge port in Gaza, linked to Cyprus, so that Palestine becomes the Hong Kong of the region and all its citizens have employment and become wealthy. Then, together, these countries—Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and others—having become partners in this huge, positive construction project, can work together to develop the Sinai peninsula as an enormous solar energy park and a source of clean energy for the planet. It would move the region from oil and gas income to massive solar energy profits. This partnership could build peace, co-operation and green energy on a vast scale, which the world needs.
Also, it has been suggested that, since Mount Sinai is sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians, we could invite leaders from all faiths to walk slowly up the mount from different directions and meet at the top, and they could declare that they all worship one God. Then, the area around could become a peace park, with hotels and wonderful venues for vacations, meditation, co-operation, conversation and exchanges of love and wisdom. Several organisations with which I am involved would be happy to help facilitate such a conference and further the projects that I have outlined over the long term.
I will donate the minute that I have not used to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws if she needs it in her speech.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, on Monday evening, at the Guildhall, the Prime Minister, in reference to the devastating situation in the Middle East, made a profound statement:
“The past is trying to stop the future being born”.
It is true. Both sides carry scars from the past—scars passed down through generations. These must be resolved or they will continue to create tomorrow’s wars. If we were to ask either side why, they would tell you the same: that they had no other choice but to use force to change the situation they were in. There has to be a way forward from the desperate situation which is the here and now. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when he says, “Free the hostages now”; I would add, “Stop the bombing of innocent civilians”.
The Prime Minister spoke about “realism” and “values”, about the UK’s ability to “promote peace and security”, and of this being
“a moment for moral clarity”.
These words give a glimmer of hope, of intent, to help resolve what is a truly bleak situation. Around 1,400 have been killed in Israel and more than 11,000 in Gaza, two-thirds of them women and children. Indeed, if there is no moral clarity now then we are surely doomed.
It is a time like no other to reflect on our values: our belief in the sanctity of human life, protecting the innocent, the right to justice, the right to self-determination, and adherence to international humanitarian law, because adherence to the law cannot be compromised for the sake of convenience or for fear of censure. We have been Great Britain because of our steely determination to do the difficult things that needed doing, even when other paths seemed easier. Honour demands nothing less, and we are, after all, an honourable people. We believe in justice. Our judicial system evolved over centuries. We are the champions of the just and democratic free world, opposed to all whose actions may undermine it. Because of this, our documents—hundreds of thousands housed under this very roof—our courts and our values are the light at the heart of global democracy.
Remembrance Day is just behind us, reminding us of those who fought and died for the privileges we hold most dear: freedom of speech, freedom of movement, a right to protest and a commitment to peace. Young men from Great Britain, from across the Commonwealth and beyond fought on the side of the allies in both world wars. We heard the moving story from the noble Lord, Lord Hussain.
In World War II, of the 2.5 million strong pre-partition British Indian Army from what is now Pakistan and India—the largest voluntary force in human history— 1 million were Muslims. My own father was one of those who served. Let us also not forget the Palestine Regiment and the Arab Legion. In total, 5.5 million Muslims from around the globe fought or served in some capacity alongside the allies in World War II. Some 1.5 million made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms we enjoy today in our multicultural, multifaith society.
We have been, and must continue to be, a nation resolute in its principled refusal to support anything which is counter to our core identity. No matter the corner from which the whisper to forsake our values may come, we must not cede. To witness grave injustice and pretend blindness is at best hypocritical, and we would not wish to be a nation of hypocrites.
Of course, values that are out of alignment with actions are meaningless, and words that pretend otherwise are simply dangerous. Our credibility, our legitimacy and our central role in the contemporary global world order are a function of our steadfast adherence to the rule of law, justice and fairness. We are great because of our refusal to allow our standards, beliefs, culture and history to be brushed aside for the sake of expediency; otherwise we undermine everything we stand for as a people, destroying our ability to lead in a world that is very much in need of our leadership. It is beyond time to call out those who break international humanitarian law and question their powerful supporters. We have ever been a people willing to speak uncomfortable truths to power. This is a moment in which we will decide whether history continues to see us as such.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I want to raise two issues. The first is the war in Ukraine, which I have opposed since its beginning. I supported the more cautious original approach of France and Germany, which, if followed, would have saved billions in cash and thousands of lives, although later they were forced to compromise. That war has recast relations between East and West, has led to a mass population movement, undermined the international oil markets and provoked recession in Europe. I have supported wars in the Falklands, Iraq and eastern Europe, but not this one. If Ukraine had recognised separate regional status for Donetsk and Luhansk, and had not banned the official use of the Russian language in Donbass, and if NATO, conscious of Russian paranoia over NATO expansion, had insisted on the retention of non-nuclear barrier status for a string of states stretching from Finland to Georgia, then occupation and war would have been avoided. Russia would not have felt threatened. My view did not prevail. We now await the demise of the brutal Putin and a rebellion in America over the cost of the war.
I turn to Gaza, on which I without hesitation support my party’s position. Sixty-four years ago, in 1959, as a 16 year-old schoolboy I won a Daily Express essay competition. The prize: a visit to Jordan and Israel. At that time, Jerusalem was divided, with the east in Jordan and the west in Israel. I recall visiting refugee camps in Jordan and talking to the displaced, and then my excitement on entering a rapidly developing Israel, a country I have grown to love and admire to this day. It is a country I have followed over half a century, with occasional visits.
Recent events have shaken my faith. Netanyahu and the settlement movement have alienated world opinion and undermined worldwide support for the Jewish homeland, and policies of repression in Gaza and the land grab in the West Bank, while assisting the settler movement, have been disastrous. They have shattered the Oslo process, thereby breeding the worst forms of anti-Semitism.
So where do we go from here? I find it hard to condemn Israel, but there has to be urgent change. Post-conflict Gaza and the West Bank need to be internationally re-recognised by all as the new Palestinian state. Palestine should be given full protectorate status under a renewed United Nations mandate, the legal definition of which is defined as a state under protection by another state for defence against aggression and other violations of law.
The new state should be free of all Israeli jurisdiction and occupation. An administrative power should be appointed under a process administered by the permanent members of the United Nation Security Council, perhaps very similar to the arrangements under the 1945 Berlin declaration, with defined geographic areas for individual national responsibility. The boundaries should be as advised under the Geneva accords, with the creation of a limited number of agreed settlements. However, with the murder of 1,300 innocent Israeli citizens and the consequential brutal assault on Gaza, regional tensions are likely to remain high and Israel will need further security guarantees. Gaza will require a protective wall that blocks the import of weaponry. This wall should be provided under the proposed UN mandate.
The answer to this crisis is not to further restrict the Palestinians, which is current Israeli policy. Gaza and the West Bank, united under a single administrative authority, should be physically linked by a security-fenced roadway to allow the free flow of people and goods under strict security control. It could be modelled on the Berlin corridor. Yes, that is controversial, but I am afraid that we need compromise and new thinking all round. As the late William Whitelaw, a neighbouring Member of Parliament in Cumbria, said to me on a long train journey in the late 1980s, if there is another World War it will be started over Israel.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, today’s debate takes place against a grim international backdrop: Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the appalling events in and around Gaza, mounting evidence that the policy commitments on climate change entered into in Paris and Glasgow are not being operationalised in a timely manner, and a massive shortfall in progress towards the sustainable development goals set in 2015. There can be no doubting that the international community, and the UN which is its principal embodiment, have taken some hard knocks. Should we, as a middle-ranking power with an important position in many multilateral institutions give way to despair, just wring our hands and let the fragmentation continue, or should we apply ourselves more purposefully and more effectively than we have done in the past few years to countering these shortcomings, reversing aggressions, reforming international organisations where they need it, and reducing the gap between the West and what is called the global South? I think that to pose that question is also to answer it.
Ministers have said time and again that it is in our national interest to sustain and strengthen the rules-based international order, and they are surely right when they say this. They talk the talk, but do they walk the walk? I fear not. The massive cuts in our overseas aid, the slowing down of progress towards net zero and the Prime Minister’s absence from two important summit meetings at the UN in New York in September all tell a different story. So too do the domestic laws coming all too frequently before this House which are inconsistent with our international obligations and are called out by those most qualified to consider these matters. Some, but not all, of these measures have been modified. We risk facing others if and when the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill reaches us and whatever plan B emerges from the wreckage of the Rwanda policy. This is a recipe for being a world leader with very few followers.
Then there is the often fraught relationship with the EU, our biggest trading partner in a grouping that contains like-minded countries that share our values and interests. The improvements in that relationship this year—the Windsor Framework, the deal on Horizon and the memorandum of understanding on financial services—were welcome if belated, but far more remains to be done. Much of it was set out in your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee’s report in April. The Government’s response to its recommendations was in most respects general to the point of meaninglessness. Not one of those recommendations has been acted on, if one excepts the improvement in school visit arrangements with France nine months after it was agreed between the Prime Minister and the President.
Here is what remains: linking our carbon price to that of the EU through our emission trading schemes or at least keeping any gap between them to a minimum, although in fact prices are drifting far apart; having similar carbon border adjustment mechanisms, although the Government are still thinking while the EU goes ahead; taking up the long-abandoned agreement to have a structured framework for co-operation on foreign policy, security and defence issues, now even more needed in the light of events in Ukraine, the Middle East and the South China Sea than when it was originally included in the political declaration at the time of Brexit; reversing the collapse in school visits to all EU countries, not just one of them; restoring cultural and educational links by exploring co-operation between the Turing and Erasmus schemes; repairing the damaged conditions for performing artists to work across Europe; and exploring the scope for youth mobility schemes. All this and more is an agenda crying out for action, but there is little sign of that in the immediate future unless the Minister intends to surprise us in his response to this debate.
It would be comforting but utterly unrealistic to expect calmer waters in 2024. It is more likely to be the contrary. Replacing the policy of neglect on the issue of Palestine will itself be a daunting undertaking. Sustaining Ukraine in its heroic resistance against aggression will be another. Plugging the gap between warm words on climate change and actual performance in fulfilling them is a third. The outcome of next November’s presidential election in the US will—like every such election, but perhaps more so on this occasion—be consequential for our own foreign policy. It will not be sufficient simply to reach for the comfort blanket of what we call the special relationship. We will need to work in NATO and with the EU to respond to whatever the result of that election may prove to be.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble and wonderful friend Lady Goldie, who will be sorely missed, and welcome my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia, who will be a great asset to this House.
It has been 40 days since one of the worst atrocities since World War II took place, carried out by Hamas terrorists on Israeli soil. Yet within 48 hours the sophisticated propaganda machine run from Iran—that bastion of human rights, according to the UN—had managed to put the blame on Israel. Those 1,400 men, women and children massacred and the 240 hostages—some British, by the way—are rarely mentioned in the media and elsewhere. The focus is solely on Gaza, the home of 100,000 Hamas terrorists, where women and children are used as human shields and where billions of pounds in aid has been siphoned off to buy weapons and luxury for those who supposedly lead them, right under the noses of the UN, the EU, Governments and agencies which have turned a blind eye.
Terrorism is a cancer which spreads if untreated. Let us recall the IRA. Over four decades, more than 2,000 civilians were murdered and thousands were injured in its so-called just war. But while the IRA tried to bomb us into oblivion, the slow creep of Islamic extremism was on the rise. I joined an airline when hijacking was the order of the day. Some noble Lords may remember Entebbe and Dawson’s Field, the BOAC VC10 and Black September, the forerunner of the PLO. The wake-up call should have been Lockerbie—Pan Am flight 103. A sleeper in Frankfurt airport placed a bomb in the hold of a 707. I give examples only because I am someone who specialised in aviation security for many years. Meanwhile, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood went unchecked. A once peaceful religion was being slowly hijacked by ideology.
The modus operandi of these death cults is to destroy Jews, infidels and anyone who stands in their path. The icing on their cake, of course, was 9/11—3,000 victims blown to smithereens by suicide bombers. Here in the UK, four years later, it was 7/7 and a further 15 attacks, including the Manchester Arena bombing—our music festival, an evening of joy that turned out to be one of the worst atrocities carried out on British soil. Last weekend was our weekend to remember. Organisers were asked to postpone, but no: why would they?
These are not always peaceful protests, whatever the naive or the apologists may say. For too many outside tonight, this is not about being pro-Palestine. They are anti-Israel and anti-Jewish and have been whipped up by Islamic extremists calling for jihad. One of them is even an NHS GP from London, who is apparently in charge of Hizb ut-Tahrir, HT, which is apparently not a terrorist group. There are activists from some mosques who are clerics spouting death and destruction. It is out there, and it is on the record. This is brainwashing children and leaving so many decent people afraid to speak out.
The public have lost confidence in the authorities, and political correctness has stifled debate. Multi- culturalism has become a myth, and it will fail if one or two sections of society refuse to integrate and insist on imposing an ideology on everyone else. This is a holy war, when all decent people of all religions and none need to come together, stand up, speak out and be counted. Appeasement is not an option. Why is the IRGC not a proscribed terrorist group when it is Iran that pulls the strings?
In conclusion, to go back to the beginning, for those still in denial, Israel is fighting for her very existence, and our Jewish friends and neighbours are fighting just to live in peace. This is a battle we cannot lose—otherwise, we are all lost. Staying silent is not an option. As Lady Thatcher once said:
“The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our way of life”.
If we cannot do that, we have no future.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, my focus today has to be on Gaza. To understand Israeli reaction to the vile and barbaric 7 October attack by Hamas, we have to multiply the numbers killed and taken hostage by seven—the differential in our respective populations. How would we react if we lost 8,500 killed and 1,700 taken hostage? But one has to keep a cool head, carefully think through the form and degree of retaliation, and have an exit plan.
A humiliated and vengeful Netanyahu is hardly that cool head. In an interview reported in last Saturday’s Times, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak says of Netanyahu:
“He used to say that whoever wants to block the possibility of two states has to support our policy of strengthening Hamas, keeping them alive and kicking, even bribing them. Can I call it protection money?”
Barak also calls Netanyahu’s coalition partners “racist, messianic crazies”—the extremist coalition that has empowered and armed the zealot settlers in the West Bank and provided army support for their expansionist aggression.
Israel called up reservists—my own cousin in Israel has three sons; one is in the regular forces, and two have been called up—and launched an attack to eliminate Hamas once and for all. But we must ask whether this can realistically be achieved. Having spent years constructing a vast network of tunnels, unquestionably using funds meant for Palestinian welfare, it is well prepared and dug in, certainly below schools, mosques and hospitals. Key Hamas leaders are living abroad, and many fighters will have dispersed into the wider population. Yes, Israel will massively degrade Hamas and destroy much weaponry and infrastructure, but I fear it will live on, augmented by new revengeful recruits following Israel’s military actions, with its ideology of destroying Israel continuing.
However, I have to say that I am appalled at the scale and ferocity of Israeli bombing and shelling. In war there is always collateral damage, of course, but 10,000-plus targets in a densely populated territory the size of the Isle of Wight has wrought sickening bloodshed and destruction, and has probably, sadly, killed some hostages as well.
Israel has cut off to the wider population food, water, medical supplies and fuel that could have been delivered safely by the UN or similar. Hamas will surely have stockpiled in tunnels. Had Israel been clever, she would have increased such supplies and certainly guaranteed them in relation to an agreed release of hostages, which is absolutely vital.
I believe a ceasefire is now a must for three reasons: first, to negotiate and as a condition for the release of all hostages; secondly, to avoid further loss of innocent lives; and, thirdly, to avoid giving Hezbollah cause to significantly enter the conflict, an action that would certainly bring about severe Israeli fatalities and destruction. We should then seek to establish an Arab-led UN-type peace force to stabilise the situation, giving Israel security guarantees and, within Gaza, providing reconstruction direction and perhaps in time some form of democratic process and statehood.
In a very recent Chatham House paper, Rear Admiral Lionel Jarvis, a former surgeon-general of the Royal Navy, argues for a UN-led fleet of hospital ships. The US has two 1,000-bed vessels, and we have the RFA “Argus”, with a 100-bed facility, in the Mediterranean at the moment. I ask for the Minister’s thoughts on this possibility and on offering assistance via “Argus”.
On wider defence matters, I have four specific questions for the Minister; he may well want to write to me. Has it been decided who will pay for the repairs on the “Prince of Wales”? How far below target are our Reserve Forces? Media speculation suggests that Germany and Saudi Arabia might participate in the Tempest fighter programme; are talks taking place? BAE Systems has indicated its intention to develop a weapons manufacture and repair facility in Ukraine; will the Government part fund this? Finally, on Ukraine, we must continue and increase support for her courageous fight; this must not become the forgotten war.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
I join in welcoming the noble Earl and in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her outstanding service. I join in celebrating the continuation of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on the Government Bench, and I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Young, on their excellent maiden speeches.
Addressing foreign relations first, I make a plea for increased attention to Latin America—nobody has mentioned this—a region that typically in recent years has not gained the attention and resources it deserves. I declare my unremunerated interest as honorary president of Canning House. There is so much good will for the UK in South America and central America. These are countries typically enjoying higher growth rates than the UK, and in the meantime China is all over them like the proverbial cheap suit. The recent signature of the UK-central America association agreement has been warmly greeted by our central American friends, and we should be delighted by the flow of important delegations and visitors from the signatory countries. This is an opportunity we should grasp.
On international relationships and defence, in an increasingly contested world, Britain strives to be a force for good. The Government are to be congratulated on much that they have accomplished, but I think we can all recognise that additional investment is required now in defence. A key factor today is what might be called warning time. In the 2010 defence review, and I think the 2015 iteration, the belief was that Britain would have enough warning time to prepare in a conflict. In the last 18 months, we can see that this is no longer a valid assumption, if it ever was. Today, malign action could come out of an almost clear sky.
Putin’s annexation of Crimea was unexpected, and then we wanted to believe that he would not attack Ukraine, but he did. And now, to everyone’s surprise, Hamas has attacked Israel, with devastating consequences. We can all wonder if Putin had any input in this very calculated attack. We can be sure Iran did. We can see that major threats and attacks can come very rapidly—no 10-year preparation. We must be fully prepared with the right numbers of regulars and reserves, adequate kit and proper hardware for our gallant Armed Forces.
With the threat from China and Russia—and jointly in the far north—not forgetting threats to underwater infrastructure as well as to seaways, this is a maritime era. I say this as an honorary Royal Naval officer with an entire career in maritime. But we must also be prepared for land engagement in Europe, potentially in the Baltic, where Finland and hopefully Sweden will shortly be members of NATO. The Baltic becomes a choke point for Russian access to the North Sea and to the Atlantic, with the Black Sea also a potential choke point via the Bosphorus. Russia may see ocean access for its ships only in the far north and in the Pacific. We must urgently look at land forces.
Our reserves are now part of what is called the total force—with a revolving door—but what then of back-up? How does the Minister see back-up? In the stellar debate of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, a few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, had just returned from Poland where they were to increase their reserves by 100,000. Our reserve strength is around 30,000. We should do everything we can to increase the reserves.
My final point is of the utmost importance. For me, a real elephant in the room is the state of the union. Going back over centuries, the Scots and the Irish have made enormous contributions to Britain’s, Europe’s and international defence. Not enough of us are engaged in convincing those of our splendid Scots and gallant Irish friends who may seek independence rather than the benefits of a United Kingdom. We should embrace them more directly rather than standing back for fear of offending them. Scotland and Ireland are of the utmost importance for many reasons, including their remarkable contribution to our Armed Forces manpower, the role of Scotland in our warship construction, the array of ports across both Scotland and Northern Ireland as a base for the nuclear deterrent but also for access to the North Sea and the far north. A dismembered kingdom would not have the diplomatic voice or heft of a United Kingdom.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, the appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary not only strengthens the Government, but there has scarcely been a time where it has been more important to have an experienced, strong, recognisable voice at the top tables of world negotiation.
I believe that skilful diplomacy could also have a real part in reducing the threats of war. Putin has callously imposed a monumental military mess on his country, with his botched invasion of Ukraine. However, the Russian diplomacy operation is one to be observed and, to some extent, feared. I can think of three obvious triumphs that they have had: they have managed to alienate the BRICS from the West; they have ensured that there has not been universal opposition to the Ukraine invasion; and they have succeeded, partly with the help of Turkey, in delaying by many months the necessary accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO.
I want to talk about the role of Hamas. I declare my position as co-chair of the APPG for Egypt. The parent and political wing of Hamas, and many other Islamist terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda, is the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt in 1928, ironically with a grant of £500 from His Majesty’s Government. Hamas was founded in 1988. When it was founded, it was described in its constitution as the military arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. On 28 January 2011, Hamas infiltrated Egypt, got all the way to Cairo and released many of the political prisoners under the banner of the Arab Spring, which the West initially thought was going to lead to democracy. It was only after the fall of the Morsi Government that Egypt made Hamas call itself Hamas, rather than use the title of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Political Islam, which is the hijacking of the ideology of the noble religion of Islam, is a major threat to world security and peace. That was fully revealed in 2014 with the formation of ISIS from the Iraqi franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood. ISIS took the West by surprise, as did the heinous 7 October Hamas pogrom on Israel, with Hamas clearly anticipating the violence of the Israeli response and the global concern that followed. Political Islam seeks a worldwide caliphate under sharia law: a theocracy without national borders. Thus, like any theocratic state, it is the antithesis of democracy, because it does not provide for a change of government by election. It also defies the basic concept of the United Nations, which was formed to protect the sovereignty of nation states.
It is more than a coincidence that, later that same April, the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for the long-advocated two-state solution broke down. Sadly, the Israeli Government seem to have failed to realise that, after the Hamas attack, it was crucial to minimise activities in the West Bank against the Palestinians. Given the increasing voting power of Jewish fundamentalists and the West Bank settlers, it is hard to envisage Israel reversing policy, never mind withdrawing from the West Bank. Yet I believe that the price that Israel must pay for both victory in the Gaza war and subsequent peace is the two-state solution.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I felt very proud today. I felt proud that I live in a country with an independent judiciary that operates on the rule of law, even when it means correcting a mistake made by government in its policy. This morning’s decision on Rwanda was made on the facts—let me make that clear: on the facts and the evidence. The decision relied on the evidence received in great volume subsequent to the memorandum of understanding with Rwanda and the great sums of money put at its disposal.
Since the time of that memorandum of understanding, there have been no applications from Afghans, Syrians or Yemenis that have been successful; there has been a 100% refusal rate. What it calls into question is the ability of decision-making to follow due process. Refoulement —the return of applicants to the places where they were persecuted—is happening regularly at the hands of the Rwandan system.
The court also received evidence of secret transfers of people to Uganda. I know from my own work in cases involving Rwanda’s human rights issues that, consequent to the terrible events of the genocide that took place there years ago, the country is still unstable and does not have a reliable legal system. It was on that—nothing to do with human rights law or the European Convention on Human Rights—that the decision was based; it was based largely on laws passed by our own Parliament. It is a vindication of our own legal principles.
I also felt happy this morning. My heart sang when I saw that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was still in office. He is a great Minister and I have had lots of dealings with him, so it was marvellous to see that he remains; he is a stayer and a keeper. I was sad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, go—my compatriot from Scotland was also a great Minister—but I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in her place.
I also welcome the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Roberts. I do not know the former, but I know the latter. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is great writer and I have enjoyed many of his books. My son-in-law has just finished reading his book on Napoleon and says that it is a triumph, so I recommend it to all noble Lords.
I want to talk in serious terms about Israel and Gaza. Three Israeli mothers were in London last week, and their pain was visceral. Their children are being held hostage. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, the return of the hostages has to be a priority, and we should call for it over and over again. Their anguish was beyond imagining, yet they still called for peace—it was remarkable. We all share that heartbreak and dismay at the horrific toll being taken by this conflict.
I believe in law, because I have practised it now for 50 years. When people are howling in pain over horrible things that have happened to them, the law is more necessary than ever before. It is why the state, either domestically or internationally, has to deal with the wrongs that are experienced, to be consistent, to apply law and to be true to law. I hear Ministers saying, “It’s all collateral damage. Look at what happened when we had to bomb Dresden during the Second World War, and they bombed Coventry; look at the great toll it took on the people of both cities”. But that was the very reason that the Geneva conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so on were created after the Second World War: to bring more reason to these horrors and more rules to the way we do things.
The world was revolted by 7 October, but it is also horrified by what it is seeing daily on its screens happening to the children and civilians of Gaza. Children do not start wars and babies do not support Hamas. It is an interesting fact that almost half the population of Gaza was not around when Hamas was voted for all those years ago. So we should not be dancing on pins; we should be calling for an immediate ceasefire. International law makes it clear that the principle of proportionality applies to all uses of military force, but people who are watching do not think this is proportionate. They do not hear the arguments about self-defence requiring this level of life-taking.
The other matter is one of distinction. The principle of distinction means you have to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, but that is not happening, either. Those principles are sacred and we should be reminding everyone of how important they are. They mean that if one party does not adhere to the rule of law—and clearly Hamas has not—it is not a green light to the other side to ignore the laws of armed conflict. So I am in favour of a ceasefire as soon as possible, because of the humanitarian needs but also because I strongly believe that we have to listen to the parents of those children who have been taken hostage. We have to return to the peace table and we have to have women at it. We are living in dark times, but the answer to all these issues is adherence to human rights principles. They do not disappear in times of war; they should be our lodestar, along with the rule of law, in times of crisis.
I was offered a minute and a half by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Stone, because he finished so quickly, so I shall mention something else: universal jurisdiction. We have limited universal jurisdiction in this country, because it applies only to citizens or residents. That means we would not be able to arrest Hamas people if they arrived at Heathrow Airport, such as the man who suggested from Lebanon that it was possible to repeat and repeat the events of 7 October and that in fact Hamas should extinguish the “Jewish entity”, as he called it. We would not be able to arrest the Wagner military if they arrived at Heathrow. So I am calling on the Government to amend their legislation, when they get the opportunity with the Criminal Justice Bill, to remove those limits. If someone arrives here, it should be possible to arrest them for war crimes, crimes against humanity or the perpetration of a potential genocide.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, in adding my welcome to the Minister to his post and congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Roberts, on their maiden speeches, I particularly praise the latter for the moral clarity that he showed in his contribution at the end in making what to my mind is an irrefutable case about calling on Israel to simply lay down its weapons and agree to a ceasefire in the face of the genocidal attack that was perpetrated on it. Like many Members of this House, I saw for the first time the unfiltered footage that was shown by all-party groups here, with the support of the Israeli embassy. It is an unspeakable evil.
We have heard a number of important contributions about the need for the UK to retain its capacity to be a force for good, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, put it. Often, those contributions focus on the need for continued investment in our defensive capability. I absolutely endorse that; 2.5% of spending may well not be close to sufficient for the scale of the challenge faced by the UK and its allies.
Equally important is the need for moral clarity and resolve in the face of the clear evil that we saw. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was powerful in her contribution when she talked about the need for Israel to follow international law, but there is a huge danger for the UK and the West to be myopic in their focus when they talk about the need to follow international law and blame Israel for the situation, when it is of course Hamas that has embedded itself in hospitals, deliberately targets civilians, deprives its citizens of fuel so that it can fuel its rockets and tries to manipulate the international media, with the help of Iran, through disinformation on a scale that all too often gets through. Too often our focus is on Israel alone. If we allowed ourselves to go down that route as a country—which, to their great, both the Government and Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, have ensured that the Government and the Opposition have not—we would become part of the problem.
I was in the other place with the soon-to-be Lord Cameron in 2013, at the time of the disastrous failure to support limited military action in Syria as a response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons— I was one of only four Labour MPs who refused to follow my then leader, who pulled support from the Government at the last minute. That was a reprehensible act by Ed Miliband, but the Government bore a significant amount of responsibility for failing to make the case for action in Parliament and to the public.
So, in welcoming the future Lord Cameron to this place and his role as Foreign Secretary, I say that it is of paramount importance that he has learned from that failure, because the world is getting more and more challenged, and the need for continued investment will remain, as will the need to stay the course in Ukraine and other conflicts. That ultimately requires public support and, as a country, as a Government and in this place, we have not taken that argument out to the public to the level we need to now and in the period ahead. So I hope that he will be part of doing that as Foreign Secretary in the future.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, while we reflect on His Majesty’s first King’s Speech, it was the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor of London’s Banquet that really caught my attention ahead of today’s debate. In opening, he referred to foreign relations and stated:
“Events far beyond our shores echo here at home”.
That is undoubtedly true, but I believe that we must not neglect the events just across the channel, which undoubtedly have produced plenty of echoes here in the last few years.
His Majesty said little about our relationship with the European Union, our closest neighbour, still our largest trading partner and our major ally on the world stage. The absence of greater mention in both speeches demonstrates missed opportunities. The younger generations, who we know overwhelmingly support closer co-operation with Europe, are watching us. They are the future, and we owe it to them to rebuild a relationship with the EU that is dynamic, beneficial and forward-thinking, following our decision to leave the institutions of the union in 2016.
I warmly welcome the Government’s integrated review refresh, which, for the first time, has openly spoken of working with the European Union institutions again. I also welcome our participation in the European Political Community, which is a positive step towards fostering stronger ties with our neighbours but something that can never itself replicate the unified work we used to enjoy. Recently, we have witnessed a plethora of bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding with individual EU member states, and even states within states. Although these have value and do something to restore trust between London and the other capitals, they can take us only so far. They will never be sufficient replacements for agreements with the EU as a whole. The Government need to show a readiness and willingness to engage with institutions of the European Union itself to reach new agreements and enhance co-operation. I welcome the appointment of David Cameron, my future noble friend, to his new role. He certainly has the necessary experience and skills to take this forward.
The current trade and co-operation agreement, although significant, must be just the beginning of a new chapter in our relationship with Europe. It is a foundation, but one that now needs to be built on. Of course, there is an obligation on us to conduct a thorough stock take of that relationship in 2025-26, so, as we prepare for that review, we must ask ourselves a question: are we really going to be content with what we have now and try to pretend that everything is fine and working well? I think not. We cannot do that, and that review presents us with a golden opportunity to redefine our ties with Europe.
For instance, we must build on the momentum established by the Windsor Framework, referred to by other noble Lords. We must be bold and proactive, not reactive, in our future approach to the EU. As a priority, there are lots of things that we can and could do soon. First, let us reach an SPS agreement, which in itself will significantly reduce barriers to trade by maintaining multilateral frameworks for human and animal health. Secondly, we should introduce a UK-EU youth mobility scheme to provide an opportunity for our younger people to live and work together in Europe, and, of course, to help to fill labour shortages in this country. Thirdly, professional and other qualifications should be recognised once more across both sides of the channel. These are just a few examples, and there are many more.
Our relationship with the EU has always been about so much more than just trade. In the face of global challenges, such as the Russian aggression in Ukraine and ongoing migration issues, it is evident that security and defence co-operation is of paramount importance. Once again, mere bilateral agreements, while useful, cannot replace the comprehensive co-operation that engagement at the EU level can provide and which provided us with comfort before. Perhaps the Government should revisit the political declarations made by previous Prime Ministers, which envisaged closer and more structured foreign and defence co-operation. We might sign an administrative arrangement, like Switzerland and the US, to join European defence projects at least on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, signing a framework participation agreement, as entered into by a number of non-EU countries, would lay strong groundwork for future collaborative engagements.
While the King’s Speech laid out a vision for the future, it is imperative that we soon address the gaps in our relationship with the EU. We must build a future that is prosperous, secure and beneficial for all, and which enthusiastically acknowledges and strengthens our long ties with Europe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her courtesy and co-operation. Throughout the time when she was representing the Government in this House, I was a member of the Labour Front-Bench defence team, and it was a pleasure to do business with her.
The segments of the King’s Speech on defence were short and vague. It is, of course, never a legislation-heavy area, so this is to be expected, but the Government’s action simply does not match their rhetoric. Since 2010, the British Army has been reduced to its smallest since the time of Napoleon. It was the last Defence Secretary who said that defence has been “hollowed out and underfunded” for years. So when the Government say that they will continue to invest in our gallant Armed Forces, what exactly do they mean?
This extends far beyond simple numbers, whether it is money, numbers of troops or quality or quantity of equipment. The last 13 years have corroded the nation’s moral contract with those who serve. Our brave troops and their families are having to live in housing that is simply inadequate, with damp and mould; it is so inadequate, in fact, that 4,000 forces families are not paying rent as a result. Satisfaction with service life has fallen to almost 40%, so it is no surprise that retention rates are dropping too. That is not sustainable, and so I ask again: how exactly are the Government investing in our gallant Armed Forces?
The Government also say they will continue to support veterans, to whom so much is owed. They are right about the last part—so much is owed. So why are so many veterans having to endure a postcode lottery on the support they receive? Over 1.5 million veterans across the UK do not have the veteran ID card that they were promised, which is supposed to ensure quicker access to important services, such as healthcare. In July, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme was found to have a
“Lack of fairness and empathy”,
causing distress for many who have kept our country safe and deserve our compassion and support. Throughout the cost of living crisis, veterans have been particularly hard hit, relying on universal credit and charitable support. The reality is that the Government are failing our service community.
The Government also pledged to strengthen NATO and address the most pressing security challenges. This is no doubt the Government’s intention, as they have shown with the support for Ukraine. There must be no change in this resolve, which we fully support, but the wider reality does not match up. There are growing concerns about the UK’s NATO obligations under this Government, as delays and mismanagement in vital defence contracts undermine our capability to fulfil our full NATO obligations and, by doing so, properly support our allies.
Ajax vehicles are still not ready; they are currently apparently in recovery and due to be eight years late. The E-7 Wedgetail planes have been delayed by at least a year. The British Army will not have a fully modernised war-fighting division until 2030. The MoD has acknowledged the risk that this amounts to: that the UK could not provide NATO with an operational Army division. When will the Government get a grip, so that the UK can be NATO’s leading European nation, leading the focus on future Russian aggression and the Arctic opening up due to climate change, and on developing a strategy to challenge and compete with China? Ultimately, when will the Government’s actions match up to their warm words?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will be changing the tone slightly here because, like occasional other noble Lords in this series of debates, I will be speaking about a different topic, as we are entitled to. But in the spirit of things here today, I will be putting my words in an international context. One noble Lord after another has, by implication if not explicitly, emphasised the importance of Britain’s role in the world and the significance of maintaining that.
Before I speak about higher education and transport, I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. I start with higher education. This sector is one of our country’s great strengths, earning probably £150 billion a year for the economy. Universities are also a source of tremendous soft power across the world. Examine the CVs of leaders across the world and you will see that many of them have studied in Britain. But you would never guess that universities are a great national asset from the Government’s rhetoric. Instead, they are depicted simply as a problem, and in this year’s gracious Speech we were promised measures to deal with low-value courses. I should have thought that a Conservative Government would leave that to the market. Indeed, the higher education market is intensely competitive. How do the Government intend to measure low-value courses? After all, I am sure they will not just use salaries post-graduation.
Nothing in the gracious Speech deals with the biggest problem facing universities, which is that the funding model needs urgent reform because Brexit and Covid dealt twin blows to university sources of income. Horizon is, thankfully, restored, but belatedly, and many millions have been lost in research funding. It will take many years to rebuild. Sadly, there are no plans announced in the Speech to rejoin Erasmus, which is so important in expanding the horizons of young people which is so good for international peace and understanding.
Universities increasingly rely on foreign students for income. Fewer EU students means that they have to look to the wider world, and the Government’s measures in relation to making it more difficult to get visas not only affect the numbers of applicants coming to our universities but actually make it more difficult for university staff and researchers from the UK to visit those countries concerned, as retaliatory action is taken. I hope that the new Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary will discuss this problem.
On transport, the gracious Speech was a huge disappointment. It seems the Government cannot manage to stop the boats but are determined to stop the pedicabs—they are referred to as a “scourge”, which is a slight overstatement. As a nation, we face the twin challenges of a creaking transport infrastructure and rapidly changing technology. On both, the Government’s response is inadequate. Last year’s Speech promised a transport Bill to cover Great British Railways. This year, that Bill has been abandoned, along with the second phase of HS2, and there has been a watering down of the Government’s net-zero ambitions, and hence their responsibilities to the rest of the world. These policy U-turns were greeted with dismay by the automotive and rail industries and particularly by foreign investors in the UK.
In post-Brexit Britain, we have lost a lot of what were our major markets in the EU and must look to modern technology to adapt for the future. I welcome the planned legislation on automated vehicles but regret that there is still nothing to deal with micromobility, such as electric scooters, and nothing to encourage the use of sustainable aviation fuels or further development of electric vehicle charging. Finally, since most people in Britain still rely on public transport, why has Great British Railways gone from a major government plan to a draft Bill? We are wasting vital time in sorting out our national infrastructure. We cannot be an international player of great power, strength and status unless we have a decent, modern infrastructure.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness and her wise words about universities, which one would expect from someone from Cyncoed, where I was born. I add my praise to the two maiden speeches. I look forward to learning the lessons of history from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and am delighted to have on our Benches my noble friend Lord Young, who has been an outstanding servant to our late and great Queen. We are lucky to have them both and I look forward to their further contributions. I also echo the praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who was a model of a Front-Bench spokesman, listening and answering carefully. She was great; I add my welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Minto.
As head of the Home Civil Service, I normally kept away from foreign policy and defence because I had weighty colleagues such as the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lord Dannatt, and Lord Guthrie. They were terrifically able, so I could concentrate on domestic matters. However, the world is out of joint. I am alarmed and concerned about the wider horizon. In my experience, foreign policy and defence must be the two top priorities of any Government of any political colour, backed up by firm law and order, courteously expressed, and a strong economy. We do not have those now. Unless you have good, strong foreign policy and defence, the other important functions of the state—education, health, welfare, and so on—are at risk. Foreign policy and defence are our insurance. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at present we are not sufficiently insured. We are very much at risk. We have lots of fine words, but fine words do not stop bullets.
I am therefore very glad to welcome the appointment of the Foreign Secretary to this House. It adds weight to the proceedings of this House to have someone with such experience and background. We are lucky to have the responsibility and privilege of holding the Foreign Secretary to account. I hope we also have the opportunity, at times, of influencing his thinking. It is an important development; in a non-political way, I welcome it.
The Foreign Secretary will receive a lot of briefing—far too much. On a domestic matter, I hope he has a copy of the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, delivered on Monday, in which he revealed something which shocked me. He said:
“All Ministers of State in this House are now expected to work for nothing”.—[Official Report, 13/11/23; col. 294.]
I was astonished at that. It is because the number of Ministers in the Commons has grown. When I was Cabinet Secretary, I advised the Prime Minister several times about the balance between Ministers in different ranks and the numbers of salaries we had in the different Houses. I always protested at the thought of 14 out of 30 Whips and Ministers being unpaid. It is demeaning to the House and it is wrong for the Ministers. I do not expect the Minister of State to answer about this when he replies, but I do hope the future noble Lord, the new Foreign Secretary, is aware that he is paid when his Minister of State is not.
I will listen to the Foreign Secretary with huge interest. He will of course talk about Gaza and Ukraine. Underneath that, there are two areas I will listen to very closely. One is his thinking on China. He has a lot of experience of China. I suspect he may have changed it. I think we will want to learn from him. What makes the Chinese think? They have a complex, ancient way of thinking, which is very different from ours. We could easily misinterpret them by treating them as if they were westerners. We need to be very careful to get them right and get the best advice and thoughts about our dealings with China. That is hugely important, as my noble friend Lady D’Souza said in her wise words earlier.
The second issue on which I will listen to the Foreign Secretary closely is on our position in the world following our departure from the European Union. We joined the Common Market in large part to give ourselves a greater place in the world and to be of assistance to the United States in their dealings with Europe. Now we have left Europe, we are on our own again, back where we were. We have not yet worked out or said how we will make the most of that position. Some good thinking has been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, had some very good ideas. It is very important that the Foreign Secretary has time to think about that and give a lead on it.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to what has been an interesting and far-reaching debate, and I am grateful to have the opportunity of speaking on this.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
When considering the highly volatile nature of international affairs at this time, it is not surprising to hear so many insightful and well-informed speeches in your Lordships’ House, especially from the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Young. I join the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in his comments about David Cameron in his new office as Foreign Secretary. We need strong leadership at this time and people who really understand the world and its affairs, and who have good contacts. It is a dangerous and difficult place, and we do need that.
I will start by saying a few words on international trade because I believe that is essential in bringing countries together and is a force for good. With our departure from the European Union, we have an unrivalled opportunity to benefit from free trade. I was so encouraged to see the Government bring forward the Bill to promote free trade and investment, particularly with the CPTPP. This opportunity to bring together with the UK a number of middle-ranking countries in the Pacific, along with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and all the others in that club, enables us to have more of an influence in free trade, especially with like-minded countries.
In a dangerous and unstable world, it is vital that the Government approach future bilateral agreements with strategic foresight and understanding that the trade deals of today must pave the way for broader co-operation and the security of tomorrow.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of the UK’s AI summit at Bletchley and I am pleased to see that the focus on this important and fast-moving area remains a priority for the Government. This is partly because the future of trade, particularly digital trade, is entwined with advancements in AI. If we can remain at the forefront of harnessing and correctly regulating the application of this transformative technology, we will pave the way for a truly global Britain where our business can thrive and our markets expand. That said, we all know that AI is not without risks, and I therefore hope that the Government will continue to look carefully at AI’s impact on trade, particularly in the context of cybersecurity and ensuring the safety and reliability of digital trade.
Against the backdrop of the worrying situation in Israel, I further welcome the Government’s commitment to progressing the economic activities of public bodies Bill, and I hope that, with the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in the UK, this legislation will be timetabled to progress with speed. As a former leader of a council, I can say with confidence that local residents simply want their councillors to get on with the job of delivering high-quality and cost-effective services. It is not the job of councils to pursue their own foreign policy agendas, especially in ways which undermine the UK’s international standing and leave individual communities at risk of hate and persecution. I therefore welcome this government commitment.
One cannot miss the opportunity today to comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Rwanda plan, which shows just how difficult the situation is and that a change of direction is now needed. We need a robust, fair system to deal with asylum seekers. As I have said previously, I believe that should be through bilateral deals with countries—I cite the example of the Albanian joint communiqué that was announced not very long ago. I believe that is the direction of travel we should be following.
I conclude by reminding His Majesty’s Government that Britain, with its rich history, economic prowess and defence capabilities, has an unparalleled opportunity to be at the forefront of causing the international order to meet the demands of this highly interconnected world. The task of steadying the choppy waters of global affairs is becoming more difficult by the day. The challenges are immense but the potential for a brighter and more secure future is within our grasp, and that is why the Government have my support in delivering on the promises outlined in the gracious Speech.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for interrupting him at the beginning of his speech. My sight is not terribly good and I misread the Order Paper.
I suppose I am a geneticist, partly at least. Some years ago, shortly after the genome had been sequenced successfully, I made a television programme about the sequencing, and the BBC took my blood and a swab as well to test my DNA quite anonymously, so I did not know anything about the results. I was extremely surprised to see that, out of four particular alleles, which are present in only about 1% of the population, three of them came from the area of Judea—what is now part of the Palestinian West Bank—and I have them in common with the people there. So I suppose I have a real reason to speak in this debate.
If we go forward 1,500 years later, my direct ancestor, Joseph ben Ephraim Karo, was a great scholar who was four when he was expelled from Spain in 1492, and then expelled from Portugal at the age of nine, from where he went to Morocco. From Morocco, he had to move to Turkey, Adrianople—Edirne, really—and then Salonika. He was also in Nikopol in Ukraine. He truly was one of the boat people: many of that family died on the boats and he was a child for a good deal of the time when that happened.
Karo, it turned out, was a great sage. He was brilliantly educated, speaking Arabic, of course, as well as Hebrew. He eventually landed up in northern Israel, in in a place called Safed. There he founded a community which eventually grew to 14,000 people, nearly all of them Jewish. There were 18 seminaries there and Muslims came and sat at his feet, because they had a very close relationship. They came mostly from what is now Syria and Lebanon. Now, in the north of Israel, Hezbollah shoots its missiles, and my great nephew is watching out and holding guard.
In many of Lord Sacks’s speeches—I can count 19—in this House, he talks about the central moral principles of Judaism, and he emphasises the Pikuach nefesh, the notion of the sanctity of human life, the idea that we are made in the image of God. It has been hard for me to talk in this debate. I have to say that I am bewildered by doubt, haunted and deeply dismayed by what is happening.
I am not fighting this war, and I know from experience —I go to Israel very frequently professionally—that the IDF has high moral principles which we all share. There have of course been calls during this debate and elsewhere for a ceasefire. That might be for the best, but none of us here in this Chamber is a general fighting this war, and unless we have the detail of what is actually happening, I do not think we are in a position to judge; we are not on the front line and we do not fear for ourselves. We have to accept that we are dealing with a completely unprincipled enemy that has done what it has done repeatedly for years, ever since Israel left Gaza and after many so-called negotiated ceasefires, which have been repeatedly broken.
We can judge things only by reported news, and I regret that the media has frequently been highly irresponsible, to say the least, in its reports. The suffering is of course utterly appalling, and we shed tears over it, but it is also newsworthy to report atrocity, even when the facts are unclear, and even when we are certain: Gazan citizens are used as—forgive me, not as a shield, that is too kind a word; they are expendable. That is the truth of the matter.
One important result of this war, like nearly all wars, is the corruption of truth. An old Talmudic saying of falsehood, is lashon hara, the evil tongue. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, is not in his place, but as he mentioned, the focus of falsehood is lie. As the Talmud says, it is like murder. It is not the murder just of one person, the person who is being lied about, but also of the person who promotes that lie and the people who listen to it—so a minimum of three people are effectively dead, according to Talmudic teaching, as a result of falsehoods made of lies and libels. It is a very dangerous situation. Sadly, the media has published many falsehoods and, I think, made it very difficult to judge what is happening.
I co-chair the British-Israel Science Council, supported by the British embassy, to which I acknowledge my thanks. My co-chair, my opposite number, Dr Ruth Ardon, is a much greater scientist than I am, and, like most citizens there, she wants peace and, like many academics in Israel, collaborates with others, not just overseas with Britain but with Palestinians.
I also have many friends from Gaza and Palestine. Sadly, I cannot talk about them and what they say to me because I would endanger them if I did. It is a terrible thing to have to accept. What we can see very clearly is that most Gazans are certainly not supporters of Hamas and most Israelis did not vote for Netanyahu. We must have hope and trust. We need to consider that, and we look forward to changing things in time. It may take a long time, but it is worth doing all we can.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, continuing that theme of corruption of truth, defence in foreign policy has little to do with defence of the realm. There is no threat from a foreign power wishing to invade our country. Billions spent on what is called defence are used to protect or expand political and trade interests around the world.
This concept of defence includes the arms trade—the manufacture and selling of horrific means of killing to other countries. The UK, the USA, Russia and China are all involved in selling weapons to countries with sometimes deplorable human rights records to fight their neighbours, who are equipped with similar weaponry. Future generations will look at our involvement in this sordid trade with the loathing and contempt that we today reserve for the slave trade.
The United States, Russia, the UK and China are all members of the so-called Security Council, created to end global conflict. Instead, members of the Security Council are themselves the main perpetrators of conflict and human rights abuse. In industry, such abuse of power for personal gain would result in instant dismissal. We toppled Colonel Gaddafi in Libya but left the country in ruins. We used the excuse that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, knowing it to be false, to attack Iraq, brutally treating the civilian population and causing Sunni Muslims to flee to Syria. Russia, seeking political advantage, cynically came to the aid of the Syrian regime, adding to already horrific suffering. Then there was our failed intervention in Afghanistan. When Theresa May, on a visit to Washington, stated that we must stop trying to be the world’s policeman, the 22 countries that we have not yet got around to invading must have breathed a collective sigh of relief.
We are all moved by the suffering of the hapless people of Gaza, who are experiencing not only a blockade of food, fuel, water and medicine but bombardments of hospitals and refugee camps by Israel with weapons supplied mainly by the United States and us. Astonishingly, we and the United States, in our refusal to call for a ceasefire, give our tacit approval to Israel in its collective punishment of the people of Gaza for the sins of Hamas. Why? United States President Biden put it succinctly:
“Israel is an important ally”.
This dated concept of dividing the world into friend and foe, in a 19th-century game of political chess using smaller nations as expendable pawns, is the root cause of continuing conflict in the world today. Guru Nanak, whose birthday Sikhs celebrate this week, looking at the mainly religious conflicts of his day, taught that groupings that promote hatred and violence are unacceptable and reminded us that we are all members of one human family.
Recognition of this truth was an idealistic concept 500 years ago. Today, in our smaller, interdependent world, faced with common natural and manmade problems, it is an imperative. To move to peace in our troubled world, we must look beyond factional politics and work together to resolve underlying issues, a theme that was taken up the noble Lord, Lord Stone. We could do it by what Mary Parker Follett, an industrial engineer, described as looking to the law of the situation. This approach of recognising and addressing common concerns, a common yearning for peace and a freedom to live, work and travel is the direction in which we must go in the Middle East and elsewhere. In the words of the daily prayer that we say in this House, we must set aside all factional interests and work together for the well-being of our one, somewhat dysfunctional, human family.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, the bonus ball for sitting through this debate from the start, other than what we must euphemistically call comfort breaks—although in this place there is not much comfort involved—is that I got to hear two magnificent maiden speeches. The first, of course, was from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, which was typically excellent. His Wikipedia entry says:
“Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia … is a British popular historian, journalist and member of the House of Lords”.
Given the reception he has had, we can now amend that to a popular British historian, journalist and popular Member of the House of Lords. See, I told you it was worth staying for. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, gave a most elegant maiden speech, as one might expect. As deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, I very much welcomed his thoughts on how we can do more and do it better, and I look forward to working with him on Commonwealth matters going forward.
At the risk of repeating what many of your Lordships have already said, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who did such an excellent job on the Front Bench, and agree how wonderful it is that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is still there, as constant as the great North Star, to guide us through these deliberations. On the appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary, whatever you may think about the individual, and I am of course very positive about him, I think it is a huge bonus for your Lordships’ House to have the Foreign Secretary among us. I hope it is also a precedent that we can have another great office of state held by somebody in your Lordships’ House because it makes us more relevant and more potent—I think we are all winners by that appointment.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, spoke about the interlinking of what is going on in this tricky world at the moment, and everything we have heard so far today proves his point. I am a former chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council; I visited Israel a number of times, the West Bank and Gaza. I am not going to talk specifically about that because I hope we will have more opportunity to do that for longer another time. I want to talk about two specific things in the time allocated this evening: the first is Afghanistan and the second is the DPRK.
I have spoken before about the plight of many women in Pakistan—the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, knows this well—who previously held high office in Afghanistan: judges, police, all kinds of positions. I have asked the Minister in the past to reassure us that they will not be in any danger or forcibly repatriated to Afghanistan, and I am horrified by the news that Pakistan has now started forcible repatriation. Can the Minister again, therefore, reassure us that nobody who will be vulnerable to the Taliban, the authorities in Afghanistan, will be returned there against their will?
More than 100 Afghan special forces personnel, trained and funded by the UK, have also apparently been denied entry to the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme and left to the mercy of the Taliban. I very much welcome what the Minister has to say on that.
I wonder if the Minister has heard the rumour that 500 volunteers for suicide bombings are en route to Gaza. The Taliban leadership is keen to see the back of them, because they are hardliners. That would certainly add a new dimension to what is going on in Gaza. Apparently, a lot of US weapons left behind in Afghanistan are finding their way to Gaza—they are not from Ukraine, as former President Trump has claimed. Afghanistan is not finished business, and anyone who thinks it is seriously underestimates the malign role that it can continue to play.
I continue on the theme of the axis of evil. Your Lordships will be aware that Russia and North Korea have now entered relations at what they describe as “a new, strategic level”. The Russian Foreign Secretary, Sergei Lavrov, went to Pyongyang following the summit between Putin and Kim Jong Un in September. Pyongyang has now sent a thousand containers of equipment and munitions for Russia to use in Ukraine. As worrying, perhaps, is that, in return, Pyongyang is to receive Russian weapons technology to augment its nuclear programme, as well as its first military reconnaissance satellite. Incidentally, Lavrov then travelled to Iran to hold talks with President Raisi in Tehran, and Iran has subsequently supplied Russia with Shahed kamikaze drones.
John Kirby, the spokesman for the US National Security Council, said that China, Russia and North Korea presented “unique and pernicious threats” to Washington. It is not just to Washington but to the rest of us as well. We know that Russia cannot continue the fight in Ukraine alone. As I have said, North Korea has provided over two months’ worth of supplies for Russia to use in Ukraine. I welcome the Government’s recommitment in the gracious Speech to supporting Ukraine, but I urge them to redouble their efforts to stiffen the resolve of those who are beginning to waver and to continue to support the Ukrainians in their fight.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate today’s maiden speakers and thank the redoubtable noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her extraordinary service to your Lordships’ House. I also join the collective sigh of relief that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, remains in his post.
I draw attention to several relevant all-party parliamentary groups in which I am involved. I am also a patron of Hong Kong Watch.
The 9 and 10 December will mark the 75th anniversaries of the convention on the crime of genocide and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Along with the creation of the United Nations, this was architecture for the rule of law and a valiant attempt to avert another world war. Seventy-five years later, in the context of the Middle East and Ukraine, with an axis of dictators led by Xi, Putin, Kim and Khamenei, I hope that our new Foreign Secretary, the soon to be Lord Cameron, will see the collective threat that they represent. In particular, I hope that he will reassess his golden era policies on China, read the excellent report of the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee on trade and security with China, and frame his engagement and trade deals against the threats and new realities of genocide in Xinjiang, the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong, the daily threats to Taiwan and the egregious violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, particularly the 1951 convention on refugees.
During the debate here on 19 October on the report on China from the Intelligence and Security Committee, I set out my concerns at some length. That committee drew our attention to the new Foreign Secretary’s role in the £1 billion China-UK investment fund, which the committee said could be
“in some part engineered by the Chinese state to lend credibility to Chinese investment”.
The Foreign Secretary will need to reflect on that and on the role that he played in the vast Port City Colombo in Sri Lanka—a signature project for Xi Jinping’s belt and road initiative—which, as Sir Iain Duncan Smith rightly pointed out, may one day act as a Chinese military outpost in the Indo-Pacific.
China has used its belt and road programme to indebt nations and to require recipient vassal states to do its bidding in United Nations institutions and agencies. Belt and road has a combined GDP amounting to trillions of pounds, touching 151 countries with a population of over 5 billion people—that is at a moment when the UK has cut its development aid by a total of £7 billion since 2019, with 29% of the remaining budget being used to host refugees, and as we neglect links to the 2.4 billion people of the Commonwealth, spread across some 56 countries.
While that has been going on, the CCP has literally been marching into the void. Xi’s latest extension of belt and road is to create a global initiative on artificial intelligence. That is ominous because of the precedent of using facial recognition technology in Xinjiang’s surveillance state. AI is a tool that the CCP will share with other authoritarian states, enabling them to impose iron-fist control of their citizens. I particularly applaud the initiative that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has taken in trying to get a global response to this, but this use of AI will doubtless aid and abet spying with Chinese characteristics, even here in the heart of our democracy. I draw the House’s attention to yesterday’s report of the £115 million received by UK universities, some of which has direct military links to China and some of it, I might add, subject to US sanctions. What are we thinking of?
The CCP regime spies, subverts, infiltrates, manipulates and buys votes in the General Assembly. It also sanctions UK parliamentarians—here I declare an interest. It is disgraceful that the CCP blocks Taiwan from membership of the WHO, which it has used to cover its Covid tracks. For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful if the Minister reaffirmed the Government’s position on Taiwan, in line with the recent G7 statements. It is risible that the CCP regime sits on the United Nation’s Human Rights Council while being in breach of UDHR Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19 and others. It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen coop. Last night, I met Tibetan Buddhists who are grievously persecuted. There are Christians in prison and Falun Gong practitioners subjected to forced organ harvesting, while Uighur Muslims suffer genocide. In the face of this, the UN is a hollow man.
The noble Lord, Lord Swire, has previously raised, as I have, the repatriation of North Koreans by China to a state that the United Nations has describe as without parallel and as accused, through one of its own inquiries, of crimes against humanity. Next week, the President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, will be a welcome visitor here. The Republic of Korea is willing to resettle every one of those refugees.
As for the Uighurs, in 2021 the House of Commons determined that genocide is being committed. In response, China ensured that compliant states at the UN Human Rights Council rejected a motion even to debate the findings of the UN special rapporteur. In the face of all this, it is urgent that we return to the founding principles of the UN and reform it in the way my noble friend Lord Hannay described, strengthen our hard and soft power alliances, and be much clearer eyed about the threat posed by the CCP regime in China.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it has been a long day and I promise I will not take too long. We have heard very many interesting speeches during the day. I particularly welcome the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Roberts. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned his biography of Napoleon. I confess that I am not so great a fan of Napoleon as my noble friend, but it is a book that I greatly admire. It perhaps had the same effect on me as the biography of Lord Salisbury did on the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to judge by his remarks, in that it made me understand much better the motivations and workings of the Napoleonic state—which of course has been so influential in continental Europe—without necessarily making me any more sympathetic to it as a way of governing countries.
It is a pleasure, if perhaps an all too rare pleasure, to be able to support the Government completely in the foreign policy and defence agenda that was set out in the gracious Speech and in the Prime Minister’s speech at Mansion House this week, because I do not share the views that we have heard today of the foreign policy agenda of the past couple of years. Many people said that after Brexit foreign policy would be one of the areas that we would find most difficult to make work, and I do not think that events have shown that. We took a lead on Ukraine that I still believe made a great difference to the way Ukraine was handled; we have the AUKUS treaty and the new treaty with Japan that covers many issues; we have the new trade agenda, the CPTPP, the agreements with Australia and New Zealand and, I hope, with India soon, and many more. So Britain is returning to the foreign policy scene. I do not think we are a bit player. We are a major player, and we are making a difference on the world scene. I encourage the Government and Ministers to keep pushing on that in the year to come.
I want to make two specific points before finishing. The first is on China. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, said earlier about China. We have to face the fact that we face in China huge threat. It is an old civilisation, a civilisation to be admired, but one that is unfortunately in the evil hands of the CCP at the moment. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out some of the reasons why I do not hesitate to use that word. Although the Government’s strategy has moved on China over the past couple of years, it still perhaps lacks some of the clarity and sharpness that we are going to need to take us forward on that relationship. It is a bit descriptive perhaps to say that it is a systemic player. It is a menu to set out the three words of protect, align and engage. It is not a set of priorities. It is not helping us make judgments about where we draw the line on issues such as investment, trade, science and tech co-operation, education and students and much more. I wonder whether this is a good moment, with the new Foreign Secretary arriving with his expertise on China, to try to sharpen up that strategy—perhaps with a confidential element to it—to bring clarity, direction and guidance to all those who have to represent this country around the world.
One area where I think this is an issue—I will finish quickly now—is on the British Indian Ocean Territory, where we know that negotiations are under way with Mauritius. It appears that the Government have changed their view over the past year of the advisory judgments that came from the ICJ and ITLOS and the status of the General Assembly resolutions on this subject. There was a very good paper from the Policy Exchange think tank last month with an excellent foreword from the noble Lord, Lord West, setting out his concerns on that. Mauritius is a country that is influenced by China and could well be influenced further. I find it troubling that we are in a negotiation that seems likely to result in handing over that territory with such an important base, such an important strategic asset for the United Kingdom, without fully understanding why it must be done or why the legal view has changed. Perhaps, either in winding up or later, the Minister could set out why the legal view has changed. Perhaps it is time for a fuller statement on where those negotiations stand and what the Government’s aims are.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is sometimes educative to look back at other contributions there have been in debates on the gracious Speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and my noble friend Lady Ludford made me think about some of the opportunities that could lie ahead for future European co-operation. I stumbled across this contribution, which I will quote from Hansard:
“for five years the last Government tried the patience of our partners by the suspicious way they approached even the simplest and most constructive proposals for common Community action … By contrast, the Government today are determined to engage actively with our partners in developing the Community in the interests of all its members. We believe that it is in this co-operative framework that we can best construct a Europe in which future generations can live and prosper.”—[Official Report, 22/5/79; col. 237.]
That dangerous liberal progressive rhetoric was from the last time that we had a Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords, because it was Lord Carrington’s first speech as Foreign Secretary in reply to the gracious Speech in 1979. As I am of that generation, I hope that the new Foreign Secretary might repeat some of that sentiment when he comes among us.
I also commend the maiden speeches we heard today and the genuine sentiment, which I fully endorse, with regards to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her work. As a fellow Borderer, I particularly welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his new role. I am sure that his ancestors as lawless Border reivers will be rather amused that he is now in charge of the British Army, but I welcome him to his post and wish him well for it.
This year, 2023, is proving to be a terribly bloody year for civilian casualties in political conflict, with children bearing the brunt. My noble friend Lady Smith referenced Ukraine, and in Sudan—I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, referenced Sudan very early on in his contribution, and the Minister knows I have an active engagement there—three times the population of Gaza are currently displaced. Half of them are children. This is the highest number of displaced children anywhere in the world. Some 14 million children in Sudan are in urgent need of life-saving humanitarian assistance. This is the gravest humanitarian crisis on the planet. Many are living in fear of being killed, injured, recruited or used by armed actors, and conflict-related sexual violence, including rape and child rights violations, will likely continue to rise.
We have also heard of the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Reportedly, over 11,000 people have been killed. Two-thirds of them are reportedly children and women. Of course, we know that Hamas also targeted children and young people in its brutal murders and taking of hostages. Children are most at risk now, especially girls, when water and sanitary health services are reduced. The United Nations warned this morning that wash facilities are starting to shut down; that includes within the shelters for the UN which are currently hosting over 290,000 IDPs. The urgency is clear.
Children bearing the brunt of conflicts means that the next generation may also bear witness to how Governments have responded. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem powerfully said that our actions now are not just about ameliorating the humanitarian crisis but about ensuring that the next generation does not live with a great level of resentment. I fear greatly this will be the case.
I also wish to pay tribute to the United Nations. UNRWA has been bereaved; over 100 UN aid workers have been killed in this conflict, the highest in the United Nations’ history.
Our Benches believe that a bilateral ceasefire is now necessary, and it should be the basis, as my noble friend Lord Palmer indicated, not only for creating space for humanitarian assistance but also to try and provide some form of political mechanism that may offer some hope, despite how difficult that would be. There are those Israeli leaders such as the former Prime Minister Yair Lapid who addressed the United Nations General Assembly last year, so we know that there are figures who can be peacemakers.
The Prime Minister said in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet on Monday that the UK would provide the
“serious, practical and enduring support needed to bolster the Palestinian Authority”.
I agree with him on the need for that, but, as the Minister knows, I have called out the cuts of 90% from the UK to the OPT over the last two years. Also, the UK support for UNRWA has been cut by half.
Some have referenced the new Foreign Secretary, and we will welcome him to his new position. I think the whole House will join me in feeling a deep sympathy with the Prime Minister, who was unable to find anyone from among his 349 colleagues capable enough to hold the post. He will have a warm welcome here. I reflected on the fact that the last time a Conservative Prime Minister was brought back to be Foreign Secretary, it was to help us to get into Europe. As my noble friend indicated, this one helped us get out.
The context that we now have going forward is not just humanitarian crises but the growth of autocracies and the fragmentation of the rule of law. This morning, I had the great privilege of speaking in a ceremony in which Liberal International, the organisation that our Benches are part of, presented the prize for freedom to Evgenia Kara-Murza, the wife of Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence in isolation in Siberia because he speaks out against the Putin regime. That is one indication. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have sanctioned those who prosecuted him. As well as my discussions yesterday and last week with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Richard Ratcliffe, that was an indication that had highlighted in my mind that, if there could be one area in this King’s Speech where there would have been legislation for foreign affairs and defence, it would be putting on a statutory basis access to consular services for those joint nationals who, unfortunately, are being politically detained but have difficulty securing long-term UK support for consular access. In their names, I hope that the Government will act on that.
As well as calling for the rule of law to be respected around the world, we must respect it here. As has been referenced with regards to the Rwanda judgment, we have yet again relied on the Supreme Court to uphold British values. I have visited the reception centre in Kigali, as many colleagues know. The warnings that I and others have made repeatedly, which were brushed aside by repeated Ministers, have now been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the Government are insisting on bringing a treaty forward, we will do our job here and scrutinise it very carefully indeed. Of course, this will not just be scrutiny with regards to how effective it will be. It is, simply, a morally wrong policy.
Regrettably, I feel that the United Kingdom has now become an unreliable partner, with six Foreign Secretaries in eight years, often with screeching U-turns in policy. We have had the flawed abolition of DfID with the global reputation that it had. We now know from WhatsApp exchanges at the time from the Cabinet Secretary that this was done to a timeframe for political diversion purposes. We did not have a development strategy for six years, and now we will have two in two years. We have been told that the new White Paper will be transformative, but it was not even referenced in the Minister’s opening speech. With regards to how seriously we are taking emerging economies and countries, we have had Africa Ministers with an average lifespan of 11 months in office over the last seven years.
There is unreliability and a lack of dependability, with callous development cuts, often mid-programme. For the first time ever, we are spending more on overseas assistance here in the UK, on failed policies, than on humanitarian bilateral programmes abroad. We are an unpredictable player on strategic issues. Now we are apparently still tilting to the Indo-Pacific to thwart China, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, indicated, we have a Foreign Secretary who says that he wants to see
“the UK as the partner of choice for China in the West”,
and a Government who have deliberately ballooned our trade deficit in goods with China to £40 billion, the biggest ever deficit to a single country in the history of our trading. No wonder the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee described this as a “strategic void”.
We heard also from the Prime Minister in his speech at Banqueting House that
“vital humanitarian aid is reaching civilians in Gaza, and across the Horn of Africa – funded by the British people. This is who we are”.
However, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact in its most recent report highlighted:
“UK bilateral humanitarian aid fell by half between 2020 and 2021”.
ICAI said in its report, as a riposte to the Prime Minister, that this
“has meant that UK support for global relief and recovery efforts … in response to the August 2022 floods in Pakistan and the worsening drought in the Horn of Africa … was significantly smaller and pledged later than in previous years. This has diminished the UK’s ability to play a leading role in the international response to crises”.
Regrettably, we have a situation where we are not dependable, reliable or predicable.
At the same time as we are slashing by half UK contributions to the World Bank development programme, there are 30% cuts to the African Development Bank and 30% cuts to the Global Fund, which fights HIV and AIDS. Further to the references in the debate to women and girls, we have cut our support to UN Women by 77%.
In our view, this all means that we need an immediate restoration of the legal requirement to meet 0.7%—not for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party simply to trot out the Treasury language of “when fiscal circumstances allow”—as well as an independent development department that can again restore British leadership around the world. The Prime Minister said to his party conference:
“You either think this country needs to change or you don’t”.
I love my country, as everyone in this Chamber does, and I am aggrieved by how its international standing has been systematically undermined by the Government. For the sake of my country’s standing in the world, it is the Government who need to change, not my country.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her work as a Minister; I have appreciated the many exchanges we have had across the Chamber. I also welcome the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his post.
I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Roberts, on their excellent maiden speeches. We will hear some fantastic contributions from them in the future. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that I have not had the opportunity to read many of his books. Unfortunately, I have been focused on reading all three volumes of Chips Channon’s diaries; I have certainly learned a lot about what has gone on in the past in this Chamber.
I have very firmly fixed in my mind my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws’s reference to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, as a “keeper”; that is what he is for me.
As my noble friend Lord McConnell said, the world faces huge challenges with inequality, conflict and climate change. More than ever, we need a strong Britain on the world stage. But this Government have left Britain increasingly disconnected from our closest allies, with a tarnished international reputation and reduced influence in the world.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, that Labour’s foreign policy will prioritise reconnecting Britain for security and prosperity at home—a confident country, outside the EU but a leader in Europe once again. We will be a reliable partner, a dependable ally in NATO, a leader in development and at the vanguard of climate action. We will drive forward the industries of the future for Britain. With the right priorities, the right partnerships and the right values, Britain can and will thrive.
I turn to the Middle East. I have talked before in the Chamber about the horrors that Hamas committed. I have not seen the films, but I have spoken to the families of people affected. Not only do they have the horror of knowing that their relatives are hostages, but those relatives have had their families murdered, and that has to be at the top of our mind when we consider this issue.
We all have to be determined to hold those people who committed these horrors to account. They cannot be allowed to get away with it. However, we also have to consider the impact in Gaza. We have heard that more than 11,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed, and every one of those lives mattered. Two-thirds of the dead are women and children. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, neither should we forget the UN workers and humanitarian workers who have suffered the same fate. These deaths are shocking and cannot be ignored. The desperate reports from hospitals in northern Gaza, short of fuel and filled with civilians seeking shelter, are truly shocking. All parties must follow international law, acting with necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution.
Labour supports the independence of the International Criminal Court and recognises its jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza. In the Statement to the other place on Tuesday, which we have not considered but I hope we will cover in this debate, Andrew Mitchell said:
“It is not for Ministers to seek to state where the ICC has jurisdiction; that is for the chief prosecutor. The chief prosecutor has not been silent on this matter, and I am sure he will continue to express his views”.
In response to my right honourable friend David Lammy, who sought clarification on the Government’s position, he said:
“It is not for me to fetter or speak in the place of its chief prosecutor”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/23; cols. 511-13.]
For the sake of clarity, I hope that tonight the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will confirm very clearly that the UK Government recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza. Previous Prime Ministers have put that in doubt.
Gazans need aid now—medicine, water and fuel. A full, comprehensive and immediate humanitarian pause in the fighting across the whole of Gaza is now necessary to alleviate Palestinian suffering and for Hamas terrorists to release the hostages. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right: Hamas’s stated aim is to wipe Israel off the map, it committed the most brutal attack on Jews since the Holocaust, and now it is using innocent Palestinians as human shields.
We must not give up on the narrow openings that keep the prospect of peace alive. That means preventing escalation; condemning violence from settlers in the West Bank, which I personally witnessed in May and has continued at pace; condemning rocket attacks on Israel from Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and elsewhere; and creating a future where Gaza is not subject to occupation.
Meanwhile, international diplomacy evolves and the facts on the ground are changing day by day, in relation to both hostages being rescued and Hamas’s capability to carry out attacks like we saw on 7 October. We must move to a full cessation of fighting as quickly as possible. The reality is that neither the long-term security of Israel nor long-term justice for Palestine can be delivered by bombs and bullets. We must seek a path to a political process that leads to two states: a secure Israel and an independent Palestine.
On defence, the gracious Speech says that the UK
“will continue to champion security around the world, to invest in our gallant Armed Forces and to support veterans to whom so much is owed”—
who can disagree? The first duty of any Government is of course to keep our country safe. Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and we will continue to steadfastly support military, economic and diplomatic support for Ukraine for as long as it takes. By fulfilling our NATO obligations in full and renewing the nation’s moral contract with our Armed Forces, only Labour will secure Britain’s defences for the future. As my noble friends Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, who are with me on the Front Bench, said, the Government have hollowed out our Armed Forces since 2010, and they have cut the British Army to its smallest size since Napoleon. We need to ensure that we have those troops back on the payroll and ensure that we return their morale to make sure that they are fighting fit.
On Ukraine, I reassure everyone that, although there may be a change of Government next year, there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes. One thing that was missing from the gracious Speech—given the Motion that was passed unanimously by the other place—was the need for legislation on the seizure of Russian state assets to repurpose them for the reconstruction of Ukraine. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us tonight that that legislation will be placed. Not only do we have to make those responsible for this war accountable; we have to make sure that they pay for the reconstruction. We must continue to stand with Ukraine in every aspect that it needs, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, until it is victorious over Russia in defence of its own territory.
On China and the Indo-Pacific, the noble Earl repeated the Government’s policy on China through their interrelated strands of “protect, align and engage”. Of course, the Intelligence and Security Committee report described the UK’s approach to China as “completely inadequate” and said that Britain was “severely handicapped” in managing future security risks. I assure noble Lords that, in government, Labour will carry out a complete audit of UK-China relations so that we can ensure that the relationship reflects our interests and values and that we can set a consistent strategy for the long term, ensuring that everyone—business, civil society and Governments—fully understands our intentions.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, were absolutely right to raise the issues around the Taiwan Strait. We want to see a dialogue and peaceful moves to address those issues. We have been clear about our serious concern about China’s increasingly aggressive actions towards Taiwan and the attempts to intimidate its democratic leaders. Of course, it is important to avoid accidents and miscalculations that raise tension or risk escalation, but these are part of a wider pattern of China becoming more assertive, as we have seen in its actions in Hong Kong and the South China Sea. We have spoken about the repression in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that it is simply wrong and outrageous that China has brought sanctions against UK parliamentarians for raising these concerns.
I want to conclude by referring to our new Foreign Secretary, the future Lord Cameron. I have on many occasions praised him for one vital legacy of his foreign policy—the way in which he followed on the leadership of Gordon Brown on the millennium development goals, ensuring that the international community focused on the sustainable development goals. Of course, in September, the UN Secretary-General called for a global SDG rescue plan to be met with a co-ordinated response—I hope from the United Kingdom, our international partners, civil society and business. I hope that the future Lord Cameron will be absolutely focused—and I shall certainly be focused on holding him to account.
One issue that I have been particularly concerned about is nutrition. Nutrition financing has been disproportionately impacted by cuts to UK ODA, and there remains a major gender gap on nutrition spending. Some 149.2 million children under five years of age are stunted; 45 million are wasted and nearly 40 million are overweight. More than 1 billion women are experiencing at least one form of malnutrition. By 2050, climate change is predicted to increase the risk of hunger and malnutrition by 20%; 45% of deaths in children under the age of five are linked to malnutrition. This requires action, and on these challenges, while we are at the halfway point of the SDGs, we have a long way to go to meet them. Nutrition is pivotal to achieving SDG 2 on zero hunger, but it also underpins other goals related to health, education, peace, gender equality and poverty. Good nutrition means stronger immune systems and safer pregnancy and childbirth.
Next week, as my noble friend mentioned, sees the publication of the Government’s White Paper on international development at the global food security summit, which I am very pleased to have been invited to and I shall be attending. The summit gives us the chance to put malnutrition back on the global agenda and ensure that the United Kingdom remains in its leadership role. Again, I shall make sure that the future Lord Cameron not only takes that leadership responsibility seriously but delivers on it and on the SDGs.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, may I say what a huge honour it is to close such a well-informed and insightful debate? Indeed, perhaps poignantly for all of us, it is the first debate of this kind to conclude the debate on the King’s Speech and mark the opening of Parliament as a whole. It is an honour to cover such a speech—many comments have been made.
I am sure that my soon to be noble friend Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, will welcome the warmth of the comments made by many noble Lords from across the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Walney, my noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I have known the Foreign Secretary for a long time; indeed, it was he who appointed me to your Lordships’ House—so I feel that I have gone somewhat of a complete circle. Our first meeting was tinged with informed discussion but also a degree of amusement—from my perspective as well as his. He was straight into the role. We had the Indian Foreign Minister visiting, and the Foreign Secretary met them and had a very productive meeting. I agree with my noble friend Lord Frost about the importance of keeping issues live. The FTA with India was a key part of that discussion.
It would be remiss of me not to welcome my noble friend Lord Minto to his new role. I look forward to being one of the two bookends of a debate, as we are doing for the first time today, as I often did with my dear and noble friend Lady Goldie. Many noble Lords have rightly expressed their affection, their regard, their respect for her. My noble friend—Annabel—is one of those people who is infectious in terms of her personality, her company, her laughter, but also her insight and experience. As a roommate as well as a dear friend, she will be missed. We did many debates together in your Lordships’ House, but we were also able to travel, at times, on the global stage to show the strong association between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. I know full well that that will continue with my noble friend as he takes up these reins. I am sure my noble friend Lady Goldie will be taken with great emotion over the strong sentiment that has been expressed in the debate today.
I shall also reflect, if I may, on two quite notable maiden speeches. I said to my noble friend Lord Roberts a moment ago that The Aachen Memorandum was the first book of his that I read—my noble friend Lord Hannan also mentioned it—but I have also read the more serious side, including his biography of Winston Churchill, so I think I have read both fact and fiction: I will let noble Lords determine which is which. Equally, with the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, when we listen to a debate of great length, we often reflect on how the words “old” and “young” have been intertwined. I remember his esteemed role with Her Majesty the late Queen. All of us, when we were paying tribute to Her Majesty, remembered her with great affection and regard. We thank him for being such a trusted confidant of Her Majesty for such a great period of time and welcome him to the House. I am sure we will be learning from his contributions, as we did today on the important issues of the Commonwealth and climate.
I say right at the outset that the Commonwealth remains important to your Lordships’ House and to the Government. It is notable that the department I represent is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also reflect on the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and my noble friend Lady Mobarik. Again, they really demonstrated the strength of the personal nature of the insights that your Lordships bring, but also our history, the rich, diverse history of our country, and the sacrifices of so many, made across the world, in fighting for good over evil. I pay tribute to their contributions today.
I was also very much taken by the strength of emotion and sentiment in the various issues discussed. I am sure that, in the time I have, I will not be able to cover all of those, and in the customary way, of course I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, that I have the answers to all his questions but in the interests of time I will write. I said to my noble friend the Chief Whip that if I sought to answer all the questions I have answers for today, we would be going until what I as a Muslim would call Fajr time, which is the morning prayer just before sunrise. I am sure we do not want to stay that long in your Lordships’ House, but I am really grateful that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, also talked about the Commonwealth and Zimbabwe. It is important that Zimbabwe meets the challenges that are in front of it. There have been various reports on the elections and of course there will be criteria that need to be met in terms of the Commonwealth.
The EU was a key part of the debate, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—it was no surprise that the noble Baroness mentioned the EU in her contribution. The UK-EU relationship is a mature and constructive one. I pay tribute to the now Home Secretary, the former Foreign Secretary, for his engagement in this regard. We work with the EU to address many global challenges. We have been meeting on the current crisis in Gaza and the abhorrent terrorist attacks on Israel. We have worked with key partners across the EU—and, yes, Germany and France in particular—to address global challenges such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy, security, climate and, of course, illegal migration.
On 7 September, the UK and the EU announced agreement on a bespoke new deal for the UK’s association to the world’s largest science and research programme, Horizon Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke more about transport, but she also acknowledged the importance of that deal. I know there are different views in your Lordships’ House on the Windsor Framework, but from the Government’s perspective it sets out a new way forward for a prosperous and stable future for Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that the United Kingdom becomes the United Kingdom with the addition of Northern Ireland as part of our great nation. We are all very proud of that. On the UK’s participation in EU programmes, Horizon Europe gives UK scientists a stable base for international collaboration, which was very much welcomed. I remember how many scientists on Radio 4 that morning were acknowledging and recognising the importance of that deal.
I turn to some of the challenges. I pay tribute to the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, in their summing up and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his customarily broad introduction. I agreed with much of what he said. It was clear from the noble Lord and from my noble friend Lord Minto’s introduction that there is much in foreign policy and defence where we stand united, rightly, in light of the challenges that we face around the world—as we have done on sanctions with Ukraine—because that is an important element of what defines our incredible United Kingdom.
A personal inspiration of mine has always been Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi-ji, who once said:
“Our ability to reach unity in diversity will be the beauty and the test of our civilisation”.
That applies to us in the United Kingdom as it does to many of the challenges we face. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark talked about the diversity of our country but also, since those abhorrent acts of 7 October, the rising tide of anti-Semitism. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke passionately about this. I listened to all speeches attentively, but I agreed with his passionate plea for all of us to come together and stand in the face of these horrors at home and abroad. We must also face the rising tide of anti-Muslim hatred.
We heard about optimism and those who may not be as optimistic. I am an eternal optimist about our incredible country. If we had not seen the success of cohesion, I would not be standing before your Lordships today—a Muslim Minister for the Middle East would not be reporting to a Prime Minister of the Hindu faith. These are times for celebration, notwithstanding our challenges. That is a reflection of our cohesion, our welcoming nature as a country and our sense of equality of opportunity. We all share those values and should strive for them. That is why I very much welcomed the excellent contribution of my dear and noble friend Lord Dobbs on the richness of diversity. We must stand together and recognise the strengths of our country. I am not saying for a moment that it is not without challenge or domestic issues, but our diversity is a real inner strength in how we act on the world stage.
Not only do we stand firmly with our old allies in Europe and through strengthening NATO and the G7 but we are forging new bonds with countries that can help us solve shared problems. We heard about the Commonwealth and from my noble friend Lord Vaizey about the CPTPP. I believe that the maiden speech of my noble friend-to-be will be on that very issue. That underlines our growing strength around the world; the commitment we have shown to ASEAN, with a specific designated ambassador, was also acknowledged.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, reflected on the Government’s integrated review refresh. It is important that we continue to focus across the piece as a player in development. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I hope we will return to 0.7%, but even with 0.5% we continue to be an important player in development on the world stage. He mentioned UNRWA. The United Kingdom is second only to the United States in support for the incredible and challenging work of UNRWA. I join with him, as I am sure all noble Lords do, on the tragic loss of life experienced by that organisation.
When I visited both Israel and the West Bank about 10 days ago, I had a direct call and met with the UNRWA lead in Gaza at that time, to identify how we could be more co-ordinated and reflective of the priorities that he was expressing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, talked about the importance of UK sovereignty, security and prosperity. Those are important elements. Therefore, the integrated review reflects what will be served best by patient, long-term investment in partnerships with a diverse range of countries. We are a country that is rich in diversity and it is important that this continues to be the case.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, among others, also talked about the importance of dynamism. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, talked about ensuring that the UN remains central to our thinking. It is of course important as a body. Is it under challenge? By God, it is. However, it is important that, as a P5 founding member of the UN, we seek to support reforms that the Secretary-General puts forward to challenge some of the issues and see how they can be made better, more efficient and effective.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hodgson in every sense. We need women at the heart of conflict resolution. It is wrong in the world of 2023. It is not that there is a lack of women; it is because we do not actively facilitate that engagement. It needs to happen and I have suggested to our ambassador at the UN that we need specific clauses now in UN resolutions that name and put particular mediators into conflict resolutions, whether we are looking at the Balkans, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, pointed out, or, as my noble friend Lady Helic talked with great passion again, the situation in Gaza. Frankly, when I am going around the Middle East, I am not seeing women leaders. They probably think, “Here comes another bloke from the United Kingdom”, but I assure you that I have personally prioritised this. I know there has been a sense of having several Foreign Secretaries, but I have been there for almost seven years now and it is important that we have that continuity of relationship. We need women at the heart of conflict resolution because that lends itself to stability and security across the world.
I am very conscious of time and I have not even got on to Israel yet, but I will talk about the abhorrent terrorist attacks committed by Hamas against Israel and its international citizens. When I met with Mansour Abbas, who is the leader of one of the Israeli Arab parties, he said to me, “Minister, they were international citizens but they were also Israeli citizens—who are Arabs, who are Muslim, who are Christian”. That is the rich diversity of the state of Israel—21% of its population is non-Jewish. So, yes, we should also recognise the importance of all communities that constitute the modern, diverse Israel.
The Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and I visited the region and other near neighbours, so I welcome the raft of suggestions from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer, Lord Stevens and Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Leigh on all the issues and the incremental approach we need on the ground. I am going to be travelling to Qatar over the weekend to meet on the key matter of hostages, which the noble Lord, Lord Mann, referred to, because that is needed to ensure we create the humanitarian spaces required so aid can get through in a sustainable, unhindered format. I assure noble Lords of my best offices, and I know I speak for the Foreign Secretary as well, on the prioritisation we are giving to this issue, because it is important.
Maybe one silver lining in this extremely dark cloud over the Middle East is that the world is seized of this issue right now and we should make it count. Of course, I will rely on many across your Lordships’ House for their input. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about getting aid through. We are doing that; we have stood up aid, but it is important that it is consistent and that is why we are also looking at opening up other routes. We are talking directly to the Israelis about Kerem Shalom, for example. There are six lanes there. In Rafah, there is one lane. The maths is obvious, so that is why we need the opening—but for that we need to ensure we see security and stability across the piece.
We need to condemn unequivocally the abhorrent attacks. Tonight, there have been votes in the other place, as well as at the United Nations. I can share with noble Lords that the vote at the UN Security Council has passed, and it is important that it had a focus on humanitarian support.
Noble Lords touched on many other issues, including China. I assure your Lordships that the Foreign Secretary has said to me quite directly that he realises that, from seven years ago to today, our relationship with China has changed. However, as I said to the noble Earl, as we speak, a meeting between President Biden and President Xi has just concluded in San Francisco. There are things happening on the world stage and we have set out a very clear strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, talked about our approach to China. We have taken China to task on issues at the Human Rights Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows all too well. Every time, we have seen an incremental increase in the number of countries that support our position. However, we recognise that China has a role in providing solutions to some of the key elements. For example, the inclusion of China in the AI summit, which my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister alluded to, is a key element, among other important issues such as climate change, of how we should take a balanced approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others rightly talked about Ukraine, which is another area of key focus for the United Kingdom. Russia’s illegal invasion should not in any way be rewarded. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, talked of the high stakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, talked about principled positions in that regard. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that UK military, humanitarian and economic support committed to Ukraine since the invasion amounts to over £9.3 billion, and our support to the UN, the Red Cross and NGOs has been increasing. The UK has committed £347 million in assistance to Ukraine, and we are looking at reconstruction, such as at the recovery conference we had.
We are working with key partners in the EU, such as Germany and France, as well as with the United States. A message of unity must go out to Russia that it will not succeed in Ukraine and we are united against it in pursuit of that aim. Russia can stop the war now, if it chooses to. We will continue to be unstinting in our support for Ukraine. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, also talked about our European partners, which I have mentioned. I will write to noble Lords about the military support we have given.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that our position on Taiwan has not changed. I have talked about the broadness of our trade, and I recognise that we are working tremendously hard to ensure that we increase our trade revenues, but also our relationships, for the longer term.
My noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, among others, asked a series of questions on our Armed Forces. We are of course proud of our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lords who spoke in this debate brought their insights and experience, and I assure all noble Lords that I will write, together with my noble friend, about the issues of the size of the Armed Forces and support for Ukraine, which was raised by my noble friend Lady Hodgson, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dannatt, along with Armed Forces accommodation, which was covered in the introduction to the debate. We have made progress but there is more to be done. The appointment of a specific Minister, not just for the Armed Forces but to look at veterans, is a crucial part of this and a statement of the intent of the UK Government.
I am conscious that I have reached time on my comments for today. There is a raft of questions on various areas that I have not been able to cover. Suffice it to say that, whether on issues of soft power in defence, foreign policy, diplomacy, and indeed on how we work on our development agenda, the United Kingdom remains committed to ensuring that we remain an important player on the world stage. We recognise that alliances, not just from our history but in the present, will lend themselves to how we position ourselves in future.
There are many conflicts around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about Sudan. Depending on how you define a conflict, there are anything between 40 and 65 live conflicts that we are currently dealing with. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about Turkey.
On a final note, talking about climate and the environment, we will of course participate in the COP in the UAE very shortly. I assure noble Lords that the United Kingdom remains committed to these important priorities, for us in our national interest as well as to the benefit of others. We look forward to the participation of the noble Lords, Lord McConnell, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, and others in the food summit. We will launch the international development strategy in the coming week or so; details will be shared in that regard. That will be about honest, clean and reliable investment through British investment partnerships, providing women and girls with the freedom they need. Importantly, it underlies our credentials as a development power on the world stage.
To conclude, the United Kingdom believes honestly and sincerely in working in partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, talked from a Sikh point of view, from a religious perspective, with reflections of unity and strength in collaboration. I subscribe to that, but it is also important to recognise that when our allies are challenged, the United Kingdom is a reliable and strong supporter and partner to those under threat. Our friends we deal with in a spirit of co-operation and partnership. On those with whom we disagree—a number of them were mentioned, the DPRK and Iran to name but two—it is important that we directly ensure that we not only make diplomatic engagements but use all tools at our disposal, including sanctions, as we have done. In taking that long-term view, anchored in the values we define as our nation, the freedoms we cherish, the rule of law that we defend, the integrity of sovereign states and justice for all will remain central to our foreign policy, our development policy and our defence policy.