House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
The UK is an international leader in tackling food waste, which has fallen by 17% since 2007 or the equivalent of 26 kg per person. This year, over £2 million will go to our food waste prevention programme and we have a groundbreaking industry initiative, helping to redistribute more food than ever before.
Andrew Selous
As I understand it, a third of all food is wasted, which contributes around 9% of greenhouse emissions and costs our economy about £20 billion a year. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing policies that reduce food waste across the supply chain, such as improved food waste reporting from industry, so that we can target, measure and act on food waste for the sake not only of our economy, but our planet?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Some 60% of food waste is wasted in the home, but the Courtauld commitment includes a groundbreaking voluntary agreement with industry that has doubled the amount of food redistributed in the last two years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the Secretary of State rightly says, if we are going to reduce food waste, that starts with everybody participating, including people at home and retail businesses. In Strangford, Asda, Tesco and Lidl all redistribute food waste to local community groups before it goes bad and becomes unpalatable. Does the Secretary of State welcome that? It underlines the fact that everyone needs to participate in the reduction of food waste, starting with the supermarkets, people in their houses and the Government?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue applies to all parties, which is why we fund Love Food Hate Waste and the Food Waste Action Week campaigns to raise awareness. Food waste is down 17% since 2007 and we have doubled the amount of food redistributed since 2019, so significant progress has been made, but there is more to do and those information campaigns play a key role in getting that message across.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Question 2 is in the name of Bob Blackman, but I see that he is not present. Will the Minister answer Question 7, which is grouped with it?
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
The Government’s fly-tipping grants are helping councils across the country put a stop to fly-tipping at hotspots, by spending £1.2 million on the issue and a further £1 million will be awarded in the spring. In July, we increased the maximum penalty councils can issue from £400 to £1,000. From April, all income from those penalties will be reinvested in enforcement and cleaning up fly-tipping in local areas.
Craig Tracey
I welcome the Minister to his place. Fly-tipping is a huge problem across North Warwickshire and Bedworth, with thousands of incidents every year, particularly in rural areas where the farming community is left to bear the brunt of many of the costs. We are lucky to have a dedicated rural crime team, who do amazing work helping to tackle the issue, but will the Minister give an update on the progress of the national rural crime unit in tackling the scourge on our communities?
Robbie Moore
I am very happy to pay tribute to the dedicated Warwickshire rural crime team, which does fantastic work in that area, and especially to Carol Cotterill, who leads on it. The Government are funding a new fly-tipping post in the national rural crime unit to optimise the role that the police can take in tackling fly-tipping in rural areas. We have also confirmed reforms to waste carrier registration, the introduction of digital waste tracking, and the abolition of DIY local waste tips.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that a real problem with fly-tipping is skips? Unscrupulous and dodgy skip companies allow their skips to be filled and then, mysteriously, those skips do not end up in a legitimate place for waste. Will he look at the new technology we could have? I believe that every skip should have a gizmo that tracks where it came from and where it is going. Using technology in that way would solve problems, and I know that he would get a lot of cross-party support for it.
Robbie Moore
I will, of course, always welcome innovation when it comes to dealing with waste crime. The Government are already taking action on that by awarding £1.2 million to help more than 30 councils to purchase equipment specifically to tackle fly-tipping. Our digital waste tracking system will make it easier for authorities to identify waste that does not reach the next stage. I will absolutely be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman if he has any ideas on this issue so that we can take them forward.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Angus is the garden of Scotland—the Minister is familiar with Angus, as we all know—but we also have a fly-tipping blight that is deeply concerning for our communities. Farmers do their best to clear up those messes, but it is not just commercial fly-tippers taking an opportunity to make a fast buck; other people are avoiding proper refuse centres. Can the Minister assure the House that £1.2 million is enough? The Barnettised share of that for Scotland does not amount to very much. Will he redouble those efforts? Let us get a grip on this blight.
Robbie Moore
I do know Angus very well. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will be incredibly frustrated when he sees fly-tipping taking place in our beautiful countryside. When it comes to rural crime, we are working with likes of the National Farmers Union, our counterparts in Scotland and others to share good practice. As I have said, we have already funded a post within the national crime unit to explore how the police’s role in tackling fly-tipping can be optimised. That will specifically help rural areas such as Angus.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
PM2.5 is the most harmful pollutant for human health. Our action to date on transport, industrial and domestic sources has seen PM2.5 fall by 10% since 2010. This year, we went further by setting new targets to drive down PM2.5 concentrates, and the Government will deliver on our air quality and net zero goals by supporting businesses to innovate.
Afzal Khan
Manchester has some of the highest air pollution levels in the country, with thousands of children being seen in A&E this year alone because of asthma and the impact of air pollution. I recently met children from St Margaret’s CofE Primary School to hear about how they are asthma-friendly and doing everything they can to reduce air pollution at their school so that all pupils are safe and healthy. Labour’s proposal for a clean air Act would establish a legal right for everyone to breathe clean air, abiding by World Health Organisation clean air guidelines. Why will the Government not commit to that?
Robbie Moore
It seems to me that no action is being taken at the moment by the Labour Mayor of Manchester. The Government take air pollution incredibly seriously, which is why we have awarded £53 million to English local authorities since 2010 to support the delivery of more than 500 local projects specifically to tackle air pollution. We have also put an additional £10.7 million—granted to 44 local authorities in 2023 alone—into tackling the negative implications of air quality specifically.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Research shows that PM2.5 can be 3% to 8% higher in electric versions of heavier applications, such as buses and trucks, than in their internal combustion engine equivalents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to get clean air and cut down PM2.5, we need an eclectic future that embraces all technology and our great innovators, not just battery-electric?
Robbie Moore
As I have said, I will always welcome innovation when it comes to improving air quality, not only in transport but in the implications of industry and commercial operators. It is clear that, through the Environment Act 2021, the Government introduced the legally binding targets to reduce PM2.5. We have a set goal to reduce exposure to PM2.5 by 35% by 2040.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
From Bournemouth to Bolton, Hull to Newcastle-under-Lyme, people are crying out for action to clean our air, but the air quality targets the Minister just mentioned, which were eventually set under the much-delayed Environment Act, are at twice the World Health Organisation limit and do not have to be met until 2040. So does he accept the judgment of his Government’s own Office for Environmental Protection that, on clean air, Tory Ministers are unambitious and lacking the urgency we need?
Robbie Moore
This Government, through our landmark Environment Act, have set key targets that we will be delivering on—many Opposition Members did not support all of its measures. As for supporting local authorities, as I have said, we are investing £53 million to support them in delivering more than 500 projects to specifically tackle air pollution and air quality issues.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Strengthening food security by supporting world-class farmers and food producers is a top priority for this Government. We produce 60% of the food we consume, and food is one of the UK’s 13 critical national infrastructure sectors, which we regularly discuss with Cabinet colleagues.
Rachel Hopkins
I recently visited Tom, a farmer from my constituency, at the family farm in Pepperstock, where we spoke about the importance of UK food sustainability—growing, harvesting and eating domestic produce. That is at risk without a well-functioning seasonal worker scheme. The National Farmers Union recommends improving the current scheme by securing it for five years, with annual reviews, and by increasing the visa period to nine months, to cover longer harvests. Does the Secretary of State agree that those potential reforms could support greater food security in the UK and mean less reliance on food imports?
Steve Barclay
I agree with the hon. Lady on the importance of food productivity and the sustainability of our farming sector, which is why we held the “UK Farm to Fork” summit in May, chaired by the Prime Minister, where we discussed food security with representatives. It is also why just in this past week we announced £45 million to support our farming and rural sector in getting innovation to farms and to help with costs, such as for solar, as part of that investment.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role and, in particular, the experience of negotiating with the European Union that he brings to it, which will become more and more important in the months ahead. I welcome his remarks about supporting the farming industry, but I ask him not to forget the seafood industry and its importance in providing food security—I am sure he will not. As he also knows, he has an open invite, as the new Environment Secretary, to visit my constituency, which is a major fishing constituency in the UK. While he is there, if not before, through a virtual meeting, will he meet me and members of the seafood industry to discuss the way forward, because as much as we welcome the measures announced earlier this week to tackle abuse of legal migration, there are concerns as we transition away from freedom of movement?
Steve Barclay
Obviously, I am happy to give a commitment to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those important issues. He will be interested to know that just this week I had a series of meetings with fishing leaders to discuss some of the issues, including not only the 2026 negotiation, but the interaction with other areas of Government, not least in respect of the offshore wind sector and the pressure on space. We also discussed the work going on in our marine protection zones and how that interacts with the fishing industry, which I am absolutely committed to supporting.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), and the new Secretary of State—I believe he is the fifth during my time in the shadow Environment team. The fish our fishers catch is vital to our food security, but the recent antics of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is, in the name of safety, implementing new medical rules, are leaving many inshore fishers at their wits’ end. Can it really be right that a fisherman in the prime of his working life risks losing his livelihood because he was brave enough a few months ago to admit to a doctor that he felt anxious? I do not think it is, so will the Secretary of State corner his colleague the Transport Secretary in order to get him to do better than a temporary pause on this and to look urgently at exemptions for smaller boats, as other countries have sensibly done?
Steve Barclay
It is great to have Cambridgeshire so well represented on these important issues of fishing and farming. The shadow Minister raises an important point, because there have been concerns in the fishing sector. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries and I have been in touch with Department for Transport colleagues on this issue. There have been amendments to the regulations as a result of those discussions, which are ongoing. However, we should not alarm people either, and the way that the shadow Minister characterised this—suggesting that someone went to their GP and raised an issue, and that prevented them from following their livelihood—is not what the regulations do. I recognise that there have been concerns in the sector. We are looking at them closely and following them up, but the situation is not as he characterised it. That would cause undue harm to those in the fishing sector.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Post-Brexit attempts to recruit domestic workers into agricultural jobs have not managed to fill existing vacancies, leaving firms unable to produce at pre-Brexit levels. New Government rules on migration now put the minimum income requirements for immigrant workers far higher than the level currently earned by an agricultural worker in the UK. In that context, what assessment is he and his Department making of the impact that his Government’s draconian immigration policies will have on the security of domestic food production and on the cost and availability of food for consumers as they continue to battle the cost of living crisis to put food on their tables?
Steve Barclay
Of course we will work with colleagues in the fishing industry to discuss the impacts of the Home Office announcement—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member would like to hear the answer, having asked the question. That is part of the discussions that we will have. It is worth reminding the House that, for farming, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme is separate and is not part of the announcement from Home Office colleagues this week. However, there will be questions from the fishing industry, and we stand ready to work with it on those.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
The Red Tractor assurance scheme is independent and its relationship with food retailers is a commercial matter for it. Separately, the Government will launch a review of the fresh produce sector to understand issues relating to fairness in the supply chain. It is important that consumers know about the food they buy.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As he will be aware, although farmers in this country want to comply, they are a bit concerned that they may be disadvantaged compared with foreign producers who do not work to the same standards. What assurance can he give to British farmers that he will do everything he can to make sure that supermarkets do not disadvantage them?
Steve Barclay
I can give my hon. Friend a very strong assurance on that front. Supporting British farmers is my No. 1 priority. Indeed, with the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries in the Department, we have someone who has a lifetime’s experience of working as a farmer. We should be proud of the Red Tractor scheme, which is known around the world for being a high-quality mark of British produce. I recognise, however, that concerns have been raised and we will launch a review soon into fairness in the horticulture supply chain, but if necessary, I will not hesitate to use the powers in the relevant Act to introduce legislation to tackle contractual unfairness, wherever that exists.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
Food prices depend on a range of factors, which have recently included Russia’s war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy price rises. Supporting our world-class farmers and food producers and driving down inflation are top priorities for the Government.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit reports that energy costs and climate change have pushed up food bills by an average of £605 over the past two years, with climate change driving 60% of that increase. We already import £8 billion-worth of food from countries struggling with extreme weather. Obviously, we want to support those countries on an international level with climate adaptation. In terms of our food security here, will the Secretary of State review his predecessor’s decision to secretly scrap the horticulture strategy, which could have helped domestic growers and made us more resilient to the impact of climate change on food security and food prices?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact of climate change on food prices in the future. That is exactly why the Government passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 to help to unlock innovation and strengthen food security by enabling our leading scientists to develop crops that will best resist climate change. It is why the Government published the third national adaptation programme as recently as July, and it is why we have our farming innovation programme—with £270 million of funding—which is focused on driving productivity and ensuring that there is sustainability in the environmental and farming sectors.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
October’s consumer prices index price inflation was 10.1%, down from 12.1% in September and the lowest figure since June 2022. Industry analysts expect food price inflation to continue to decrease, and the Government are providing an average of £3,300 per household to help with the cost of living this year and next.
Patrick Grady
The Minister, like the Secretary of State before him, forgot to mention one of the biggest drivers of food inflation in this country. I will give them a clue: it starts with “Br” and ends in “exit”. The reality is that the UK is the only G7 country where food price inflation remains above 10%, and the average across OECD countries is 7.4%. If this Government are not going to follow the SNP’s proposals for price controls on food, what are they going to do to finally get a grip on increasing food prices?
Mark Spencer
I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If we compare prices in the European Union with prices here in the UK, we see that the price of a basket of goods here in the UK is substantially lower than it is for our friends in the European Union. If Brexit were the problem here, surely those prices would be higher in the UK than they are in the European Union. I think he is barking up the wrong tree.
Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The Government are committed to supporting British food producers. We are investing £2.4 billion a year in England’s farming sector, and we will also look to support more growers through the replacement of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme for England in 2026. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also sponsors small and medium-sized enterprise masterclasses to signpost and support those businesses.
Mr Roberts
I thank the Minister for his answer. Having gone through a difficult time during covid, in which it had to reduce staffing numbers, the Oscar Mayer factory in my constituency has now taken on additional product lines and is looking to expand and create significant new employment opportunities. It uses traditional methods and fresh ingredients to make healthy and affordable meal options. I know it is watching these proceedings and would be delighted if the Minister confirmed that he will visit the factory in Flint to see the huge improvements it has made in changing the ready meal sector, which has historically been poorly regarded?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to know that I would be delighted to visit a food factory. I am also delighted to hear about the success of Oscar Mayer. North Wales has a strong food and drink footprint, represented by many large and small businesses. Should my diary allow, I would be delighted to visit. I will make sure that my colleagues in the Wales Office also know that they have an open invitation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Question 11 is in the name of Sir Edward Leigh, who is not in his place. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State answered the question, as the shadow Minister has indicated that he would like to ask a supplementary question.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
The Government are investing £5.2 billion in flood protection between 2021 and 2027. This builds on the previous six-year investment of £2.6 billion, showing the increased investment that the Government are making in flood protection.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful for your generosity, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are just grateful that at least some Conservative Members have turned up.
On 20 October over 500 homes in Chesterfield, like hundreds across the UK, were flooded, leading to the tragic death of Mrs Gilbert on Tapton Terrace. Less than a month later, with the impeccable timing that only this accident-prone Government are capable of, the National Audit Office announced that the Government had cut by 40% the number of homes that will be protected from floods by 2027. Will the Secretary of State at least promise the House that he will never again say to a flood victim that the Government are doing all they can?
Steve Barclay
I am sure the whole House extends our condolences on the sad loss of Mrs Gilbert. Our investment in flood asset maintenance is up by £220 million. As I said, the previous six-year investment was £2.6 billion. Between 2021 and 2027, we are now investing £5.2 billion. Yes, there have been pressures on the programme through inflation and covid, as the National Audit Office report shows, but what is not in doubt is the increased funding that this Government are putting into flood protection—the £5.2 billion indicates that—alongside the increased funding for flood maintenance.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
The Government take raptor persecution very seriously. It is a national wildlife crime and there are strong penalties in place for offences committed against birds of prey. In 2022, DEFRA more than doubled its funding for the national wildlife crime unit to £1.2 million over three years, in part to target crimes of raptor persecution.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the Minister for his response. There are many long-standing traditions that are worth preserving in our countryside, but raptor persecution is definitely not one of them. It is a vile practice and we need to do much more to protect our majestic birds of prey. Have the Minister and the Department considered whether introducing vicarious liability would act as a deterrent to rogue landowners who direct their gamekeepers to commit wildlife crime?
Robbie Moore
As I said, the Government take raptor persecution very seriously, and those found guilty of wildlife crimes should be subject to the full force of the law. DEFRA is working with the national bird of prey crime priority delivery group, which brings together the police, the Government, local authorities and stakeholders to make sure we are doing as much as we can to tackle this type of crime.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
May I begin by thanking and paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for her work as Secretary of State? Having represented for over 13 years a rural constituency that, with the Cambridgeshire fens, is well known for its farming and water management, I am delighted to be appointed as Secretary of State at DEFRA and to be working with a strong ministerial team, including the new Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).
In the next few days I will be travelling to COP28 to continue the work that was put centre stage at Glasgow on ensuring that nature is at the heart of our approach to tackling climate change. My priority for the Department is to back British farming and fishing, champion rural communities and protect our environment for generations to come.
Dr Cameron
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. My constituents are particularly keen that the UK has the best possible animal welfare standards internationally, and they wrote to ask the Secretary of State what progress is being made, particularly on livestock and equine welfare.
Steve Barclay
Animal welfare is an extremely important issue. That is why we introduced the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill in the King’s Speech. We were only able to do that because of our exit from the European Union. It is right that we put in place a ban to stop the export of livestock and horses for slaughter. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the two private Members’ Bills that are being taken forward to tackle the important issues of pet smuggling and pet theft, which I know are concerns to Members on both sides of the House.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. He will have seen the BBC “Panorama” investigation that exposed how this Conservative Government have turned a blind eye to corruption and cover-ups at the heart of the water industry. Consumers are left facing higher water bills, while water bosses profit from pollution. Will the Secretary of State now back Labour’s plan to let the regulator block any bonuses for water bosses who are responsible for the tidal wave of sewage pouring into our rivers?
Steve Barclay
We can go one better than that, in that we have already brought forward measures that allow the regulator, Ofwat, to take action, alongside tougher penalties, now with unlimited fines. In addition, all storm overflows will be monitored 100% by the end of this year, and there will be a much tougher approach on regulation, as the House heard in the strong response to the debate earlier this week.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Steve Barclay
I can try, but the task of finding clarity in the position of the Mayor of Greater Manchester in this regard is somewhat confusing. First he says he is in favour of tackling the issue of air quality—and, indeed, we have heard from Opposition Members how important that is—and then, when he has powers to take action, he seems to look to Westminster and expect us to act on his behalf. Of course I will follow up my hon. Friend’s request and seek clarity from the Mayor, but the ability to do so has, to date, been rather limited.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
Let us look behind the rhetoric. Given that the Leader of the Opposition keeps telling us that he wants the Labour Government in Wales to be his blueprint, it is probably worth our taking a look at Labour’s record in this respect. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked the question, but he does not seem to want to hear about Labour’s record, which is not surprising. Under Labour in Wales, the average number of spills from storm overflows last year was 66% higher than the average in England. We have introduced unlimited fines and tougher regulation, and we have set strong targets in legislation. We can see what Labour in power would deliver—we can see it in Wales: a 66% increase in storm overflows.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Swine influenza is endemic in the UK pig population. It generally causes only mild illness, but the Health Security Agency’s investigation, with support from DEFRA, is ongoing. We are committed to upholding the UK’s high level of biosecurity, and work is under way, with £200 million in the current spending review, to safeguard the long-term future of Weybridge as a centre for scientific excellence in tackling high-risk diseases such as this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have not much time, so could we go a bit faster, with shorter questions and shorter answers?
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
That is one of the issues that I look forward to dealing with in the weeks ahead, and I shall be happy to drop a note to the hon. Lady.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I apologise for not being here earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Fly-tipping is the No. 1 issue in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend join me in praising Conservative-run Harrow Council for introducing free bottle waste collections and 24-hour notice of fly-tipping clear-ups, and indeed increasing the number of fines for fly-tipping from 60 per year—under Labour—to 600 last year?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
I commend the great work that Conservative-run Harrow Council is doing, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for bringing those points to our attention. The new fly-tipping league tables allow central and local government, and indeed members of the public, to identify councils that are taking a proactive approach to enforcement—instead of simply cleaning up after fly-tippers—at fly-tippers’ expense.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out a whole range of methods to support consumers with the cost of living—[Interruption.] Just as the hon. Lady raises her hands on that, it is also worth remembering that, under the Barnett consequentials, Scotland receives more per head than those consumers in England. So those in Scotland are better able to meet those cost-of-living pressures—[Interruption.] SNP Members do not seem to like the facts, but it is a fact that under Barnett consequentials the funding in Scotland is higher per head that the funding in England, which allows consumers to meet those cost of living pressures and to make those choices, should they so wish.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Over the past six weeks, the Suffolk and Norfolk coast has taken a real battering. Homes have tragically been lost to the sea, not least in Pakefield in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend review the support provided to such households and businesses, to ensure that they receive parity of support with those impacted by pluvial and fluvial flooding?
Steve Barclay
As a fellow east of England MP, I know what a fantastic champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents and how rigorously he will ensure that those points are made. He, as an experienced parliamentarian, will also know that many of those fiscal issues are for colleagues within the Treasury, but I am very happy to have discussions with him and to make representations where required.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Robbie Moore
I am happy, as the Minister responsible for water quality, to meet with the hon. Lady, but I will also say that, from the bathing water classifications we saw this week, 95.7% of bathing waters in England are rated good or excellent. That is up from 2010, when just 76% across England were rated good. This Government are taking water quality seriously, and I will endeavour to make sure that we go even further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That concludes questions to DEFRA Ministers. We all welcome the new DEFRA team.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office play a critical role in bringing economic criminals to justice. Just yesterday, the SFO announced a new investigation into fraud at AOG Technics Ltd, an aircraft parts supplier. That is the third new investigation launched since Nick Ephgrave became director of the SFO.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Members of the Conservative party used the pandemic as an opportunity to make money for their friends and donors totalling £3.5 billion. When will they face justice?
The Solicitor General
I completely refute what the hon. Lady has said. I was looking forward to her question, but I was disappointed with the tone and substance of it. It is right to say that this Government are taking economic crime seriously, and fraud as well. I hope she has seen the new fraud strategy and, importantly, the report commissioned from Jonathan Fisher KC and his review on disclosure, which is due out next summer.
Alex Cunningham
The Government’s fraud strategy in May was billed as a comprehensive plan to tackle fraud against the public and business, so can the Attorney General explain why it contains no details of the number of offences suffered by business, no estimates of the losses that result, no targets in relation to business, no measures specific to business and not a single mention of the two biggest types of business fraud: procurement and payroll?
The Solicitor General
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has seen the full strategy—that is good news. I repeat my point about Jonathan Fisher KC, who has some important work to do. The hon. Gentleman will understand the volumes of crime and the volumes of digital material in the Serious Fraud Office. Jonathan Fisher is looking at that and at disclosure, and that will help businesses, help individuals, help the country and help the SFO to get on with its job.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Solicitor General will recall that back in 2022 the Justice Committee produced a report on fraud in the justice system and the steps needed to improve the way we tackle it. I welcome a number of the changes that have been made, including the appointment of Mr Fisher KC, but will the Solicitor General reflect that one of the areas of concern is the type of fraud that is significant, causes real loss to businesses and individuals, but falls below the level dealt with by the SFO? There is real concern about the capacity and expertise within police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to tackle that level of fraud, which falls into the gap. What is the fraud strategy and, more broadly, what are the Government going to do to empower the police and prosecuting authorities to tackle that sort of fraud?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. We take all his reports seriously, especially in this area. The CPS charges 76% of all fraud matters placed before it and has a conviction rate of more than 84%. I will commit to reflecting further on this matter.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Solicitor General will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee has launched a review of fraud. Last week, we heard fascinating testimony on romance fraud from the victim of the Netflix series “The Tinder Swindler”. Remarkably in her case, she was treated as a perpetrator, investigated by the police and threatened with prosecution, even though she had been defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and was led a merry dance by that chap, who is still doing what he did then. Is there not a case for bringing together Law Officers, Ministers, the police and the social media companies to ensure that we deal with the victims and the perpetrators accordingly?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend always raises serious points and brings to bear his expertise from the Home Affairs Committee. There is a case for cross-Government working. In my role as a Law Officer I work across all Departments, including the Home Office, and I look forward to continuing to do so.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Greensill Capital is subject to criminal investigation in the UK, Switzerland and Germany. In Duncan Mavin’s book “A Pyramid of Lies,” he subtitles the saga
“The Prime Minister, the Banker and the Billion-Pound Scandal”.
Amazingly, the company was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Will the Attorney General please look into this massive loophole? The scandal could have been stopped if the FCA had been able to step in earlier.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Attorney General and I superintend both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, but that does not mean that we direct how they conduct investigations, and nor should we. It is right and proper that both organisations conduct their matters independently of Government, and that will continue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), what guidelines are given not only to the police but to the Crown Prosecution Service about the level at which fraud will be investigated? As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services, I have referred a number of cases that have come to me to the police and to the CPS, and they say that they do not have the resources to investigate them. Could my hon. and learned Friend update the House on the position?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is diligent in these matters, and he raises an issue that affects us all as constituency MPs, as we have all had cases brought to us that need to be investigated. I work very closely with both the police and the Home Office, and I will continue to do so.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
In January 2022, the then Chancellor said that, clearly, criminals have sought to exploit our covid support schemes, and
“We’re going to do everything we can to get that money back and go after those who took advantage of the pandemic.”
What proportion of that money has been recovered so far? How many of those who took advantage have been sent to jail?
The Solicitor General
First, I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place or, rather, back to his place, as I understand that this is his third outing in the shadow ministerial team. It is pleasing to see his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), whose name is on the Order Paper. We look forward to his question.
The shadow Minister will be interested to know that I recently visited the Insolvency Service, which is conducting investigations into the bounce back loan scheme and the like. We must remember that the covid lending schemes delivered just under £80 billion of finance in almost record time. It was called for from across the House and should be supported, but he is right that those who have committed fraud should be investigated.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Solicitor General
In 2022, my office received 819 requests to review unduly lenient sentences. Of those, 139 were referred to the Court of Appeal, and the sentence was increased in 68% of cases.
Kevin Foster
I welcome much of the work being done. As the Solicitor General will be aware, a serving Royal Navy sailor was the subject of a violent attack in Torquay when he attempted to stop a group of yobs stamping a bird to death, but the unduly lenient community sentences and small fines handed down did not reflect the gravity of the offence or provide any deterrent. What steps will the Government take to review the unduly lenient sentence scheme to cover cases such as that?
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I know he has had a long-standing interest in this subject since even before he was a Member of the House, and I am grateful to him for holding the Government to account. He knows that the ULS scheme—the unduly lenient sentence scheme—is reserved for the most serious matters. It is right to say that we keep the scheme under review. I cannot promise or guarantee to my hon. Friend any imminent changes to it, but I am very grateful to him for raising that important case.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Could the Solicitor General make it clearer what the scheme is about and spread the message more broadly? I regularly write to him to say that a sentence has been too lenient. I recently wrote to him about Bernie Ecclestone, who I thought should have been severely punished for his behaviour. I have also sometimes written to the Solicitor General and his predecessors about too severe sentences, often involving women who have not conducted any violent crime but get long sentences. Can we have a balance, please?
The Solicitor General
Well, it is a Thursday, and I think we have heard a call for a Backbench Business debate or, indeed, for an Adjournment debate, and I would warmly welcome that. There have been such debates on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It is not a mystery—there are further details online—but I would seriously welcome a further debate to air these matters, because they are important. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the balance between, on the one hand, unduly lenient sentences, and on the other hand, manifestly excessive sentences is important, and I look forward to his application for a debate.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
I know that the hon. Lady cares deeply about the region. She and I—and, indeed, you, Madam Deputy Speaker—visited the region together some years ago, and I know that at the current time all of us will be thinking about the places we visited and the people we met. In answer to her question, the ICC started an investigation into the situation in Palestine in March 2021.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Attorney General for her response. In the light of the brutality and sexual violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians by the terrorists of Hamas, and the scale of the indiscriminate bombing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, including children, in Gaza, how is she urging the UK Government to advocate for the end of the killing to ensure that the International Criminal Court can gather the most detailed evidence to weigh the actions of all parties against international law at the earliest opportunity?
The Attorney General
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the whole of the UK Government have consistently urged that international humanitarian law must be followed in this case. The ICC prosecutor, who is a British-born barrister—Karim Khan, with whom I have had a number of extremely helpful meetings over the course of my time as Attorney General—has said that the investigation is
“ongoing and extends to the escalation of hostilities and violence since the attacks that took place on 7 October”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Article 86 of the Rome statute says that, in relation to the work of the International Criminal Court, state parties shall “cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”
Given that in 2022 the UK referred Russia to the ICC, can we assume that the UK will comply with any request from the ICC for footage from the reconnaissance flights operating over Gaza? If not, what would be the legal basis for refusing an ICC request?
The Attorney General
As I said, the UK supports the ICC and its chief prosecutor Karim Khan. We do have surveillance flights operating in the region. The primary purpose of those is to help with the hostage situation. We will say once again that we very much hope that the hostages will be released immediately. It is absolutely the case that we will continue to urge all parties to continue to abide by international humanitarian law.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
As I emphasised to the House of Lords Constitution Committee in June, the rule of law is fundamental to our constitution, and it is the duty of the Law Officers to uphold it.
Jeff Smith
I will not ask the Attorney General to comment on specific legal advice that she has given to colleagues—I know she cannot do that—but, as a general point of principle, does she agree that the inclusion of a notwithstanding clause in legislation cannot magic away the international laws to which it refers, especially if an individual claimant can still assert their rights under those international laws?
The Attorney General
As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, I am unable to do away with client confidentiality and give him the specifics of any legal advice that I may or may not have given. I take very seriously my obligations to encourage the Government to act in a lawful manner and to ensure that the Government are acting in a lawful manner, both on the domestic front and on the international front.
Andy Slaughter
While it is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) back in his rightful place on the Front Bench, I wonder how long the Attorney General will feel able to remain in hers. How comfortable is she with the draft Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which seeks to oust the jurisdiction of our highest courts, denies our country’s international treaty obligations and treats our constitution and the rule of law with contempt? She has rightly said that her first duty is
“as an officer of the court”,
and she has called for a “respectful relationship” between the Executive and the courts. Is that why her name does not appear on the face of the Bill?
The Attorney General
May I start by thanking the former shadow Solicitor General for his great work while in that post and in particular for his championing of the pro bono movement, which I know he has always taken extremely seriously? It has been and remains a pleasure to do business with him. He knows perfectly well—better than most—that I cannot give from the Dispatch Box the details of legal advice that I have been giving to the Government, or of whether or not I have been giving such advice. That remains the case. I remain very comfortable in my role, and I hope that I will remain in this role to give the Government legal advice for a long time to come.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I join colleagues on both sides of the House in welcoming the new shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), to his place. I am delighted to see his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), still contributing to our debates. It is a pleasure and a blessing to work with both of them.
As the previous questions illustrate, there is an intense level of public interest both inside and outside the House about the legal implications of the new Rwanda Bill. While I appreciate that there is a doctrine of client confidentiality, it is nevertheless right to ask the Attorney General formally if she will publish her full legal advice on the Bill, as happened with the Brexit withdrawal agreement, or a summary of the legal position, as happened with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In particular, will she set out the advice given to her colleagues across Government on whether the introduction and implementation of the Bill is compatible with their obligations under the ministerial code and the civil service code?
The Attorney General
The right hon. Lady understands, as I hope all of us in the Chamber do, the complications of the Law Officers convention, which means that I simply cannot go into the details of my advice here. On very rare occasions, either legal advice has been leaked or, more recently, I am glad to say, a summary of the Government’s legal position, which may or may not include the Attorney General’s advice, has been provided. The sort of circumstances in which we would envisage that to be appropriate would be if we were taking military action overseas, for example. It is not something that is done on a regular basis.
What I would say to colleagues, because there has been a great deal of interest in the legal position surrounding the Bill, is that the use of a section 19(1)(b) statement is not unprecedented. In fact, I remember, as a much younger lawyer, when Tessa Jowell used such a statement for the Communications Act 2003. That Act went on to be tested in the Strasbourg Court and the Government were successful in that case, so I would not read too much into the use of a section 19(1)(b) statement. It is unusual, but not unprecedented.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
The Attorney General and I regularly meet with the SFO director; however, the vast majority of covid fraud cases do not fall within the SFO’s remit, and investigations are handled by the most appropriate agency. Recently, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I visited the Insolvency Service and heard about its excellent work in relation to bounce bank loans.
Neale Hanvey
Given the statement by the former director of the Serious Fraud Office that red flags were ignored, and that Parliament’s own spending watchdog estimates potential fraud of £16 billion, how much has been recovered to date and what further lessons have been learned and applied to ensure that identification and prevention of fraud is embedded across all Government Departments, and why are the UK Government not recovering that fraud with the same zeal and determination that they have for impoverishing benefit claimants who have had overpayments through no fault of their own?
The Solicitor General
I entirely refute and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s final comment, but he will be pleased to know that the new director of the SFO has set off apace. He has launched new investigations. There is a new energy and a new rigour within the SFO, but I repeat that it is not just the SFO that conducts such investigations; the Insolvency Service is also involved, and is also carrying out some excellent work.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
Earlier this year, the Attorney General and I visited Western Jet Foil and the joint control room in Dover to discuss the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The number of small boat crossings is down by a third this year, and we are seeing an increase in the number of prosecutions since the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Chris Stephens
Yesterday the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was laid before the House. It would disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 for those seeking sanctuary. That undermines the UK’s international reputation and international law. The Home Secretary said yesterday at the Dispatch Box that the Attorney General made it clear that the Bill is in conformity with international law, so can he confirm that that advice was given, and how is it meant to impact small boat crossings and prosecutions?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman has kindly been present throughout question time, so he will know that I cannot confirm or deny whether advice was even sought, let alone given, let alone its content. His question is about small boat crossings, which Government Members are determined to stop. I was disappointed that he did not support our Nationality and Borders Act, which prosecuted the people traffickers. That is the substance of his question. I look forward to his reading the Bill in more detail and supporting it in due course.
Refurbishing Trains: Contracts
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on expediting the contract process for refurbishing existing UK trains.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I thank the hon. Member for his question, which I will answer on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Department works closely with rolling stock owners and train operators to understand when new and refurbished trains are likely to be required, and to ensure a regular flow of work for train manufacturing companies. Trains are major assets, with a lifetime of 35 to 40 years, so there will naturally be peaks and troughs in procurement cycles. The average age of the current fleet is 17 years.
The Department has overseen the procurement of more than 8,000 new vehicles for the Great British mainline railway since 2012. Some of those are still being produced, including Alstom trains for South Western and West Midlands trains. Passenger travel habits have changed over the past three years, and while numbers are showing signs of improvement, we are still seeing reduced passenger revenue on the railway. We are aware that Alstom is facing difficult trading conditions. It is consulting its unions and employees on possible job losses. While it must be a commercial decision for Alstom, the Government have been working with the company to explore options to enable it to continue manufacturing at its Derby site. Officials from my Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport have held regular meetings with senior management at Alstom. We have also convened a cross-Whitehall group to advise on ways to support continued production at Derby and how best to support those workers who could lose their jobs.
The fact remains that the market for passenger trains is competitive. The Department cannot guarantee orders for individual manufacturers. None the less, we expect substantial continued demand for new trains. Last month, LNER confirmed an order of 10 new tri-mode trains for the east coast main line, and on Monday, a tender for new trains for the TransPennine Express route was launched. Contract awards are also expected between late 2024 and early 2025 for major orders for Southeastern, Northern and Chiltern. In the meantime, the Government will continue to work with Alstom and other UK manufacturers to ensure a strong and sustainable future for the rail industry.
Grahame Morris
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this question on a matter of some urgency. I thank the Minister for his response, and I must impress upon him and the House that the Secretary of State must expedite the contract bidding process for updating existing UK trains to ensure the survival of the UK-based train manufacturing industry. Without immediate plans to allow companies to bid for new contracts, make no mistake, thousands of skilled jobs in the UK will go. The urgency stems from the crucial role of the Alstom factory in Derby. It is the UK’s only end-to-end, design, build and test train manufacturing facility, making it integral to the UK’s rail manufacturing industries.
Some 3,000 people currently work directly at Alstom, and 15,000 jobs in the supply chain rely on the factory’s continued production. Nick Crossfield, Alstom’s managing director, gave evidence to the Transport Committee yesterday, and he was absolutely clear that the Government need to decide now on how and where they want trains to be made in the future. If this Government do not expedite the bidding process, trains will not continue to be manufactured in the UK. They will start to be manufactured in North America, South America or south- east Asia.
Alstom’s current and final contract for rolling stock is on the Elizabeth line and is due to expire in six weeks. That could mean an end to the rail manufacturing industry in the UK as we know it. Yesterday, I met Unite the union, of which I am a proud member, and rail workers from Alstom site in Derby, and they asked for our help in retaining their jobs. Also just yesterday, two of the supply chain companies that supply Alstom went into liquidation due to the uncertainty over future orders from the Alstom factory. Timing on this issue has never been more crucial.
Huw Merriman
May I again thank my friend the hon. Member for Easington for raising this important issue? This is a matter of grave concern. The site has been operating in Derby for many years. Indeed, I think he and I both went to that site when it was formerly owned by Bombardier as part of a Transport Committee delegation. That support is assured. I also make the point that I am meeting Unite the union next week. It has been in touch, and I will be pleased to work with it and everyone to see what more can be done to keep that plant open.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I know that the Minister is a great advocate of the work of the Transport Committee, and I strongly urge him to look at the transcript of the evidence we received yesterday from not just Alstom but others in the rail industry. The fact is that the medium and long-term prospects for the sector are positive. What we are facing is a short-term lull. I impress on him the urgency of working with the rolling stock companies—ROSCOs—and others to try to bring forward some refurbishment contracts that Alstom and others can bid for to help smooth out these peaks and troughs in the sector.
Huw Merriman
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for the work he does—that evidence session was particularly pertinent for highlighting the matters he allows that Committee to raise. I can assure him that the Secretary of State wrote to rolling stock owners in September to encourage them to discuss with train operators and manufacturers opportunities to ease short-term challenges in the supply chain, such as refurbishments or major overhauls. We recognise the issue, and have asked others to do their best to deliver on that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare that I am a member of Unite the union, and met with trade union members yesterday. The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated—the clock is ticking, and those jobs will be consulted on in the very near future if contracts cannot be found. The Minister wrote in September, but what has he been doing over the past three months to bring forward contracts that will enable the plant to remain open?
Huw Merriman
As I have mentioned, we have written to ask rolling stock owners what more action they can take. Just on Monday, I was up in Yorkshire for the announcement of an extra £3.9 billion in funding for the TransPennine route upgrade. That also starts the tendering process for new rolling stock—29 new trains, with an option for another 26—and as I mentioned, we are looking for the tendering process for Southeastern, Chiltern and Northern to go forward as well, so orders are being put into the pipeline for train manufacturers.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
From the generous time he has given me on this subject, my hon. Friend will know that overcrowding on the Chiltern line persists to a very serious degree, because the age of the rolling stock regularly leads to Chiltern having to run very short trains on the main line—trains that some people cannot even get on in the first place. As he looks at this important subject, will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that Chiltern can get trains refurbished and get new trains into the pipeline as soon as possible?
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend is a champion for the Chiltern line, and he does indeed bend my ear on that subject—he is right to do so, because that line is getting busier now, which is a positive. That tendering process will be brought into being next year: we want to see Chiltern trains, and that process should allow them to be delivered.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
We are not asking the Secretary of State to give one company special treatment over another—I should say that I am also a member of Unite the union—but I believe that the retention of British manufacturing capacity has to be regarded as strategically important for the United Kingdom. Will he allow us to go forward by granting all companies the opportunity to bid on new rail upgrade plans, such as Crossrail, Southeastern, and even the extensive Network North plans? Time is of the essence, and swift action from the Government can make a significant difference in securing the future of the UK rail manufacturing industry.
Huw Merriman
I can give the hon. Member that assurance. We will be bringing those contract tenders forward; we now have four train manufacturers, which is to be celebrated. We have CAF in south Wales, we have Hitachi up in the north-east, we have Alstom—of course—in Derby, and now we have Siemens in Goole. All those manufacturers are bidding, and the hon. Member is absolutely right that there must be a fair process for all, which will take place.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
It is not that long ago that we had the hated Pacer trains on the Furness line. We were very glad to see the back of those, but of course a new, shiny train is no good if it is not running. The Minister mentioned that if we are not seeing customer demand, that is going to hurt the industry, so could he speak to what the Government are doing to improve customer service and get the level of train service back up to where my constituents hope it will be?
Huw Merriman
We are aware that performance needs to be a lot better than it is currently, not just from train manufacturers but from Network Rail. Indeed, I was due to meet with the train operators this morning to discuss that issue; obviously, I have had to move that meeting, but I am very happy to meet with my hon. Friend so that I can take his particular points into account. We need to do more.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Alstom Litchurch Lane factory in Derby has been building trains for over a century, since the dawn of train travel. It has provided high-skilled jobs for the local community for generations and helps support other local companies that form part of its supply chain, and as Britain’s biggest train-building plant, it plays a pivotal role in supporting the growth of the midlands and our country’s manufacturing sector.
Following the Government’s chaos and indecision over HS2 and the lack of a long-term strategy, hundreds of highly skilled jobs at the plant are at risk, with no confirmed workload beyond the first quarter of 2024, and contracts to build trains for HS2 pushed back until 2026, creating a gap in orders. This news will be deeply worrying for those affected and their families in the run-up to Christmas. It will also be extremely concerning for local businesses that rely on the factory and the wider rail sector, and for the people of Derby.
The workers at Alstom have only days to get a decision out of the Minister before their livelihoods are put at risk—time is up. They deserve to hear from the Minister how this has been allowed to happen, and what action the Government are taking to pursue a deal to secure the Derby plant and ensure that as many jobs are protected as possible. What urgent clarity can the Government provide Alstom on the short-term rolling stock pipeline, including possible refurbishments?
I am pleased that the Minister confirmed that he will be meeting representatives from Unite the union, and I hope that he will commit to working with them to safeguard jobs. When can the factory finally get certainty on HS2 orders, so that it can plan for the future and secure jobs? How many more rail manufacturing jobs across the country are at risk following the Government’s recent decision on HS2?
Earlier this year, Derby was named the Government’s home of Great British Railways. Just seven months on, the future of its landmark factory is in danger. At the heart of this is the chaos and indecision of the Conservative party. The Minister owes the people of Derby and the country an explanation of what he plans to do to stop the Prime Minister’s HS2 fiasco leading to more job losses.
Huw Merriman
I will, if I may, deal with the matter of HS2 head-on. The shadow rail Minister made that same point, saying that this was somehow linked to HS2, and it has now been made from the Dispatch Box today. The Secretary of State responded to the shadow rail Minister, so I shall put this on the record. With regard to HS2, he said:
“I can assure you this is not the case. Alstom is part of a contract with Hitachi to design, build and maintain HS2 trains for Phase One only. Phase One of HS2 between Birmingham and London will continue”.
That position has been reiterated by Alstom’s chief executive. I gently point out to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) that this has nothing to do with HS2; that has been established, and it is erroneous to claim otherwise.
The hon. Member also has to bear in mind that we now have four train manufacturers. We cannot just award a contract to one manufacturer; there has to be a fair tender process for all the jobs across all four plants. The Department for Transport has won a case brought by one of the other train manufacturers, demonstrating that our tendering process is fair.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My hon. Friend referred in his opening statement to a new order from TransPennine. He will be aware that there is severe overcrowding on the Cleethorpes-Manchester-Liverpool service, because the trains have been reduced from six carriages to three in recent months. Can he enlighten me as to when the new stock will be coming forward, as it will greatly please my constituents?
Huw Merriman
I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents will be comforted by the order, because it is not just an order for new TransPennine express trains but a complete upgrade of the TransPennine route. The UK Government are spending more money on the TransPennine upgrade than was spent on the Elizabeth line, and that will mean delivering a better service. I was with the managing director of TransPennine trains on Monday up in Yorkshire and we were discussing just that. We need to improve the service and the rolling stock.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Upgrades to our trains must include electrification, but electrification is at a standstill, with only 101 miles of track being electrified this year. East West Rail will not be electrified as standard, and dirty diesel trains are still going through Bath. Will the Minister commit to a long-term plan for electrification?
Huw Merriman
The Prime Minister’s Network North plan did just that—electrification for Hull, between Sheffield and Manchester, and between Sheffield and Leeds. They are vast projects, not small projects. With regard to East West Rail, that is the upgrade of an existing line, which has its bridge sizes all the way through from Winslow to Bletchley, so it is difficult to put electrification on to that part. Let me remind the hon. Lady that there has been more than 1,200 miles of electrification in the past 12 years compared with just over 60 miles in the 12 years before that. I think that is a pretty good record.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I, too, have met workers from the Alstom plant in Derby and, as a Unite member myself, representatives of Unite as well. It was pleasing to hear that workers, representatives and management are united in their desire to retain good, high-skilled manufacturing jobs and train production there. I want to press the Minister again about recognising the importance of retaining the only end-to-end train production facilities in the UK during this short-term blip in production, so to speak. Does he agree that this investment in public transport is vital if we want to tackle the net zero challenges we face?
Huw Merriman
The hon. Lady is correct: that is vital. The challenge, and it is a good challenge, is that we now have four manufacturers, and we need to help them with international orders. That is why I sometimes go abroad with trade envoys from those companies to export around the globe. The average age of our rolling stock is down to just under 17 years—six years ago, it was 20 years—and as it gets fresher, there is a challenge with pipelines as well. However, we are bringing contracts forward so that we can fill the order book better.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
As a Derbyshire Member of Parliament, I can tell the Minister that there is huge concern about the future of Alstom. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the Government have lacked strategic direction on rail. They have gone from one project to another, and in the last few years there has been no sense of an industrial strategy. When we have had these debates in the past, Ministers were always blaming the EU and saying we could not support British manufacturing because of the EU. We are now out of the EU, and it seems to me that countries such as Germany are much better at supporting their manufacturing. Can we have a real sense of urgency from the Minister and an indication that the Government are going to make sure, strategically, that these jobs are saved?
Huw Merriman
I assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State in particular has been meeting Alstom, and our officials and our director general meet Alstom, including with representatives. I will be doing so on Tuesday week. We will do everything we can to assist, but this is a commercial matter for the operator. As I have mentioned, I have been to that plant with the Transport Committee and seen what it does for the workforce and for the supply chain. We will be doing everything we can to assist Alstom in keeping that plant open.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. With many of my constituents dependent on Government help and support for manufacturing industry, I can well understand union fears at the dithering and the effect on the workforce. It is necessary to refurbish a number of trains, so can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that the much-needed refurbishment contracts can be organised to keep people in work, rather than paying out redundancy money to them only to rehire them six months later when things are arranged properly? That is the desire of every Member of this House.
Huw Merriman
Yes, indeed. As I have mentioned, we are bringing forward orders, and the Secretary of State has written to the companies that finance train manufacturing and refurbishment to ask what more they can do to bring forward that refurbishment. At the risk of repeating myself, the challenge we have, and it is a good challenge, is that we have four fine train manufacturers and we have rolling stock that is younger than it previously was. So the aim is to try to get orders out, which we are doing, but I reiterate that it is also important that we help our train manufacturers export orders across the globe so that they can manufacture not just for home but for abroad, and keep those jobs going.
Cyber Interference: UK Democracy
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
With permission, I will make a statement about attempted cyber interference in British democracy. I know hon. and right hon. Members across this House will recognise the seriousness of this issue.
The Government have long highlighted the threat to the UK and our allies from malicious cyber activity conducted by the Russian intelligence services. I can confirm today that the Russian Federal Security Service, the FSB, is behind a sustained effort to interfere in our democratic processes. It has targeted Members of this House and the other place. It has been targeting civil servants, journalists and non-government organisations. It has been targeting high-profile individuals and entities with a clear intent, using information it obtains to meddle in British politics.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and parliamentary security have been briefed on the details of that activity. We want to be as open as we can with the House and the British public. Our commitment to transparency stands in sharp contrast to the efforts of the KGB’s successors to exert influence from the shadows. What can we confirm today? I want to stress five particular points of our assessments.
First, Centre 18, a unit within Russia’s FSB, has been involved in a range of cyber-espionage operations targeting the UK.
Secondly, Star Blizzard, a cyber group that the National Cyber Security Centre assesses is almost certainly subordinate to Centre 18, is responsible for a range of malign activities targeting British parliamentarians from multiple parties.
Thirdly, using those means, the group has selectively leaked and amplified the release of sensitive information in service of Russia’s goals of confrontation. In 2020, when he was Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) confirmed to the House that Russia had done that before the 2019 elections with documents related to UK-US trade. I can now confirm that we know Star Blizzard was involved in this operation.
Fourthly, these cyber actors use a combination of targeting, tailoring their operations in a far more sophisticated way than is usually the case with, for instance, commonplace cyber criminals. They typically engage in thorough research and preparation, including via social media and networking platforms. Having thus identified ways to engage a target, they create false accounts, impersonating contacts to appear legitimate, and create a believable approach, seeking to build a rapport before delivering a malicious link to either a document or website of interest. While they have targeted business and corporate emails, the group predominantly targets personal email addresses.
Finally, the targeting of this group is not limited to politicians, but includes public-facing figures and institutions of all types. We have seen impersonation and attempts to compromise email accounts across the public sector, universities, media, non-governmental organisations and wider civil society. Many of those individuals and organisations play a vital role in our democracy. As an example, the group was responsible for the 2018 hack of the Institute for Statecraft, a UK think-tank whose work included initiatives to defend democracy against disinformation, and the more recent hack of its founder, whose account was compromised from 2021. In both cases, documents were subsequently leaked.
The Government’s assessment is based on extensive analysis from the UK intelligence community and supported by a range of close international partners. Today, allies from the Five Eyes and the Euro-Atlantic region are joining us in illuminating the pervasive nature of this threat to our shared democratic values. I pay tribute to the dedicated public servants, in our own agencies and those of our partners, whose painstaking work has allowed us to expose the reality of the threat we face.
Taken together, the UK Government judge that these actions demonstrate a clear and persistent pattern of behaviour. Russia’s attempted interference in political and democratic processes, through cyber or any other means, is unacceptable. I reassure the House that we have identified targeting of parliamentary colleagues and engaged with victims through both the National Cyber Security Centre and the parliamentary authorities.
The Government will continue to expose and respond to malign cyber activity, holding Russia accountable for its actions. To that end, the UK has designated two individuals under the UK’s cyber sanctions regime, following a thorough investigation by the National Crime Agency into the hack of the Institute for Statecraft. In doing so we send a clear message that these actions have consequences. This morning, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has summoned the Russian ambassador to the Foreign Office to convey that message.
We have robust systems in place to protect against the threat from foreign malign influence. The Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), leads the defending democracy taskforce, which drives work to improve our resilience against these threats. Our National Cyber Security Centre, alongside Five Eyes partners, today published a technical advisory to provide guidance to organisations and individuals at risk of being targeted to help defend against such attacks. We will continue to defend ourselves from adversaries who seek to threaten the freedoms that underpin our democracy. It is and always will be an absolute priority to protect our democracy and elections.
A key component of increasing our resilience is supporting the National Cyber Security Centre and parliamentary authorities to deliver an enhanced cyber-security offer to right hon. and hon. Members, and to Members of the other place, that aims to better protect them against this insidious threat and support the resilience of our lively democratic society. We hope that this statement helps to raise awareness of the threat and allows those in public life, in this House and beyond, to recognise how they may be targeted by such operations.
Russia has a long-established track record of reckless, indiscriminate and destabilising malicious cyber-activity, with impacts felt all over the world. In recent years, the Government have, alongside allies, uncovered numerous instances of Russian intelligence targeting of critical national infrastructure, for example. We have worked in close co-ordination with our intelligence partners to expose sophisticated cyber-espionage tools aimed at sensitive targets. The irony of Russia’s abusing the freedoms that it denies its own people to interfere in our politics will not be lost on anyone.
Of course, our political processes and institutions have endured in spite of those attacks, but the cyber threat posed by the Russian intelligence services is real and serious. All right hon. and hon. Members should pay careful attention to it in the course of their work and their daily lives. Many in this House may not consider themselves a potential victim. I want to underline to the whole House that the targeting can be extremely convincing. We must all play our part in exercising good cyber practices, using appropriate caution and following the good guidance of the National Cyber Security Centre and others to mitigate the threat. That is how we defend ourselves and our precious democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The news that the Russian intelligence service is behind an effort to target Members of this House and the other place, civil servants, journalists and NGOs is not just concerning; it is an attack—not only on individuals, but on British democracy, on both sides of this House, and on the public we represent. Labour, along with the whole House, condemns it in the strongest terms.
The news comes as we approach 2024, the year of elections not only in Britain, but in the United States, India and the EU, with more than 70 elections scheduled in 40 countries across the world. Democracy is built on trust, and trust must be built on the confidence that politicians on all sides are able to conduct the business of democracy free from interference.
Let me ask the Minister some specific questions about these revelations. First, is he confident that the Government have uncovered the full extent of the cyber-attack and every person who was affected?
Secondly, on the response, I welcome the announcement of the designation of two individuals following the hack of the Institute for Statecraft, but has any specific action been taken to respond to the cyber-attack on parliamentarians that the Minister has revealed today? If not, why not?
Thirdly, as we approach the general election, what additional steps are the Government taking to ensure the integrity of the democratic process? Will they make their officials available to ensure that Members on both sides of this House are free from interference; to train, equip and support Members and all staff to better identify and respond to the challenge; and to ensure not just that their digital communications are protected, but that their offices, staff and families are, too?
This revelation is shocking but not unexpected. It is the latest episode in a long pattern of hostile activities by Russia and other hostile states, including Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, against Britain and our allies. There is more that we can do. Labour has committed to the establishment of a democratic resilience centre in Government to work with our allies to protect our democratic values, political institutions, elections and open societies. Will the Government commit to creating one? As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has outlined, we do not yet have a robust and long-lasting equivalent of the cross-Government counter-terrorism strategy—CONTEST —for dealing with hostile states. Will the Government commit to creating one?
Labour has proposed a joint cell between the Home Office and the Foreign Office to speed up decision making, share intelligence and expertise, and remove traditional barriers between Departments. Will the Government commit to creating one? They still have not amended terror legislation to allow the Government to ban hostile state-sponsored organisations that are undermining our national security. Will they commit to doing so? The Russia report has still not been fully implemented. Will the Government urgently update the House on when that will be completed?
This is not just about cyber-attacks and direct digital interference; it is about wider malign activity, including the use of artificial intelligence and deepfakes to seed false narratives, spread lies and foment divisions. That includes the widespread use of disinformation, misinformation and malinformation to undermine our democracy, through mainstream and social media, and other means. Labour has committed to urgently introducing binding regulation of companies developing the most powerful frontier AI, which could be used to disrupt elections. Will the Government commit to doing so too? Will they also commit to ensuring adequate resourcing for the National Cyber Security Centre, the intelligence agencies and the defending democracy taskforce?
I give the Minister every assurance that the Labour party will work in partnership and full co-operation with the Government and all relevant authorities to take every necessary step to address this threat and protect the integrity of our political process from hostile interference. As politicians from different parties, we have all stood united across the House against Putin’s imperial aggression in Ukraine. That unity is a source of strength and pride. In the face of these threats, this House must remain united, Britain must remain united and democracies must remain united in defence of our institutions and against those who seek to undermine the great values that our society is founded upon.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the tone and constructive content of the right hon. Gentleman’s response. He is right to say that 2024 is a bumper year of elections, involving some 70 elections and billions of people across 40 countries. This is a matter of trust and confidence, which is why we have made this statement now, to ensure that its full deterrent effect is properly timed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we are confident that we have uncovered the full extent of the activity. We have a high degree of confidence with regard to this specific incident, but of course it is a question and our duty is to remain ever vigilant. The lesson of this sort of activity is that a higher degree of vigilance is necessary, and that is the posture that we now maintain in terms of any future activity.
I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the designation. Specific action has been taken by the NCSC, in accordance and together with House authorities, to ensure that all of the individuals affected have a higher degree of preventive measures in place. The posture of the House authorities, and the security offer available, have been enhanced. However, as I have said, it is a matter of improved vigilance on all sides. As for additional steps we might take, there is the collective deterrent impact of our naming and shaming these individuals and designating them in our sanctions, as well as the diplomatic effort to call Russia out, combined with personal cyber-security measures on behalf of individuals—those important steps that all colleagues need to take.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Whitehall structure in this area and pointed to his own policy of calling for a joint cell. We are confident that the defending democracy taskforce, led by the Security Minister, represents a robust and cross-departmental response. On the wider picture of disinformation, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to up our game to counter disinformation, call Russia out and better resource and energise our own security posture in the cyber domain. That has been done; there is an enhanced degree of resource, organisation and political will. This public statement today is part of the hugely important deterrent effect.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Intelligence and Security Committee was one of the first to sound the alarm on this issue in its Russia report. More recently, we have highlighted the risk that China poses through interference in democratic discourse, for example, in think-tanks and universities. Will the Minister update the House on what action the Government are taking in response to the recommendations made in those two substantial reports?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Clearly, this statement is about Russia, but she draws a comparison with the activity of China. That is an appropriate reference and I am pleased that in our domestic legislation we have the ability to ensure that countries with malign intent do not use think-tanks or other fronts to influence domestic political discourse in a way that is contrary to the health of our democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. It makes for disturbing reading and I absolutely agree that Russia’s actions are completely unacceptable. That Members of this House and others have had their email accounts hacked is deeply concerning, but we know that this has happened before—indeed, it is probably happening right now—and we must accept that it will almost certainly happen again.
As the Minister said, Russia’s actions demonstrate a clear and persistent pattern of behaviour. Given that, have the Government considered making cyber-security training mandatory for all MPs and their staff? He will be aware of the belief that one of our weakest links in our cyber defences is our staff, who are constantly targeted by unscrupulous external actors. Although they are not House employees, it would be a reasonable precaution for MPs’ staff to receive in-house training on exactly what to look out for, how to avoid getting sucked into a trap and what they should do if they have even the slightest suspicion that they are being targeted.
Democracy is under attack. Just last week, the Canadian Government’s Communications Security Establishment released a new report on cyber threats to elections saying that at least a quarter of national elections around the world were targeted by some manner of threat, and that China and Russia were the most active countries and were launching increasingly sophisticated influence operations by spreading disinformation and seeking to push elections in a specific direction. Perhaps most worryingly, the Canadian report states in relation to AI undermining elections:
“We assess it very likely that the capacity to generate deepfakes exceeds our ability to detect them.”
With MPs facing having their emails hacked, the democratic process being undermined and the UK general election just around the corner, what are the Government doing to proactively defend the integrity of those elections, and when can the House expect to hear about it?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments and questions. He is absolutely right about the scale of the threat. Alongside our calling Russia out and describing the nature of the threat, it is important that we point out that Russia has failed in its intent to undermine our domestic politics. It was a genuine attempt that failed, and we are now more aware and resilient. That is why we are calling Russia out, but we should also be proud that the institutions of our democracy remain resilient. Russia has failed in its efforts and it will continue to fail because we will continue to call it out.
The hon. Gentleman made a very good point about staff training. I do not think we should mandate that, but we have worked on a much-enhanced offer to ensure that cyber-security is, root and branch, part of the normal working practice of MPs and staff. That offer has radically improved. The House authorities will continue to keep colleagues up to date. A higher degree of awareness in our working practice is very important and that is part of the rationale behind today’s statement.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s update. I am sure that I am not alone in having received a large number of template emails on particular subjects. When I have diligently written back to those individuals, they have said that they did not send the emails. It is quite clear that hostile actors are collecting our constituents’ email addresses and using them to subvert the democratic process. Will my hon. Friend take the message not only back to the Foreign Office, but across the House, that this needs to be investigated and stopped?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This practice, using emails to insert malware or to entice users to click on a malicious link, is sometimes extremely convincing. Staff have to deal with a great volume of such emails, which is why we are pleased that the House authorities have greater awareness. Staff should seek guidance from the House authorities on taking a more secure approach.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister contributed to a very good debate in the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which met in Westminster earlier this week, and touched on some of these issues. We are clearly dealing with hybrid warfare—there is no other phrase for it.
Although I commend the Minister for coming to the House to give us this information, the response of sanctioning two people seems rather mild. Will he say more about that? Will he also say something about the co-ordination across western democracies and allies on next year’s year of elections? We must all co-ordinate so that we can spot patterns in order to deal with this threat.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady should be reassured that, although today’s announcement pertains to two individuals, it is indicative of a huge and sustained institutional effort to tackle this threat by way of a vastly improved defensive cyber-capability right across our nation. Our global response is working hand in glove with Five Eyes partners, and there is a huge diplomatic and security effort to make sure this activity is called out and pursued. That is not just deterrence; it is also enhanced resilience. Although the number of individuals is small, the hon. Lady should be reassured that the institutional work is tremendously well resourced and entirely determined.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am incredibly grateful to the Speaker’s Office, the Security Minister and the House authorities for their work to increase our awareness and to improve our protection within Parliament, but we are in a very privileged position. Frankly, the fabric of our society that is most at risk are those parts that do not have access to such information, whether they are small and medium-sized enterprises that supply critical national infrastructure, whether they are the parts of the economy that keep us going or, indeed, whether they are those who protect our elections. Will the Minister speak a little about what protections and information will be offered to them so that they can support us?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This affects us all. It not only affects parliamentarians or those in public life; it affects those in commerce. The National Cyber Security Centre has published guidance and is available to provide guidance to those businesses that need to ensure they have a higher degree of cyber- security and resilience, particularly those involved in, for example, critical national infrastructure.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a refreshing statement, but what action will be taken? This is a very serious challenge to our democracy. Indeed, it is not only a serious challenge to Members of Parliament. I know of a major takeover of a British company by a Chinese entity. The senior executives said that, when they attended meetings, the Chinese knew information about the company, its secrets and its background that they could have known only by illegal means. It is everywhere, and it is particularly coming from Russia, China and perhaps Iran and North Korea. Can we have action? Yes, we need to train our staff and Members of Parliament, but I was brainwashed as a child by the James Bond novels—maybe you were too, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a wonderful intelligence system, but are our intelligence services up to the job? Do they need more resources?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman asks about action. It is a good question, and I can give a good answer: in terms of our domestic legislation, we are now thankfully in a position to ensure that foreign countries with malign intent cannot freely invest in critical national infrastructure without the permission and outside the purview of Ministers. Ministers have taken specific action to ensure that divestment has taken place in certain commercial entities where a national interest is at stake, and that will continue to be the case. The Government posture has altered radically in recent years, and we should all be encouraged by that.
The hon. Gentleman made a welcome reference to James Bond. Of course, it is the Government’s policy never to comment on the security services, but I can ensure the hon. Gentleman that they are up to speed and very well resourced.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
This is shocking, but not at all surprising. We have heard before about possible interference in the Brexit referendum, and then we had the Russia report, which was not implemented. We are on the cusp of a general election—which may come sooner rather than later—so my question to the Minister is, what conversations are being had with the Electoral Commission and the political parties, because it is not just MPs we need to think about, but candidates? Also, what plans does he have to take a whole-of-society approach so that voters can build resilience, and our democratic process and the ballot are completely secure?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a good point and asks a good question. The threat is significant, but I should reiterate that it has failed, which I think points to the resilience of our democratic institutions. That does not mean that we should not be eternally vigilant—we will be. That work involves all parties across the House and candidates. A lot of the preventive work is being carried out by the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is specifically looking at this issue under the Security Minister. The hon. Lady should be reassured that they have the bit between their teeth.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. What we have seen is malevolent behaviour, and I am glad to hear some of the Government’s plans. However, Labour is committed to establishing a democratic resilience centre, so can I press the Minister to ensure that the Government consider following our lead?
Leo Docherty
That work is already in place under the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the wholly re-energised and newly founded National Cyber Security Centre, established under this Government with tremendous resource and energy. Whatever we call it, there is now a significant effort to ensure that we deter these things and that MPs and everyone across the political spectrum are in a much more secure position.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
As a new Member of this House, I obviously find this statement concerning. Will the Minister therefore outline some of the additional support that can be offered to new Members and their staff, particularly because there is a lot to navigate? There is an induction process, which I welcome because it has helped very much, but there was about 10 minutes on cyber-security, so it definitely could do with being updated.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and she is absolutely right. An improved and enhanced offer is being worked up together with the House authorities. Cyber-security and cyber-hygiene should be a default daily practice. All colleagues should be aware of the offer, and it should be made available to all colleagues and staff.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement. Our Government have been prepping for cyber-warfare for some time. Indeed, the rationale behind lessening investment in recruitment into the armed forces has been that cyber-warfare is a bigger threat. That being the case, will the Minister confirm that the Government are prepared to act, should these newspaper claims have even a slither of truth? How can we send the message today that the UK is prepared to face the cyber-threat as readily as any other threat?
Leo Docherty
We are well placed. The threat is significant, and the risk to national resilience is significant in the cyber-age. The Deputy Prime Minister has led a huge amount of work on national resilience. Defensive cyber is an important part of that, and the National Cyber Security Centre has an important role to play. The challenge is huge, but the Government have covered a huge amount of ground. However, there is more work to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Business of the House
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 11 December will include the following:
Monday 11 December—Second Reading of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill.
Tuesday 12 December— Second Reading of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
Wednesday 13 December—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 14 December—A general debate on knife crime, followed by a general debate on the potential merger of Three and Vodafone. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 15 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 18 December will include the following:
Monday 18 December—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill.
Tuesday 19 December—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 19 December and return on Monday 8 January 2024.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me first pay tribute to two Labour giants who have passed away in the past week.
Alistair Darling was one of the guiding hands in the last Labour Government. He was one of only three Ministers who served in the Cabinet throughout the entire period, most notably as Chancellor during the global economic crisis. His calm, decisive and comprehensive response helped to save our economy, and his leadership rightly earned him global and cross-party plaudits. Glenys Kinnock, whose later years were stolen by the awful effects of Alzheimer’s, will be remembered for her political leadership alongside Neil, but also, very much in her own right, for social justice, women's rights, and international development. Glenys was a true sister who supported and encouraged a generation of women into politics, including me, and our dear friend Jo Cox. Our thoughts are with their families.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, what a mess: as the Home Secretary finally unveiled his Rwanda Bill, the Immigration Minister resigned in disgust. Emergency legislation, and now an emergency reshuffle—and, as we speak, an emergency press conference: it is total chaos. The Government are now in freefall, unable to govern, and all the while families are worried about paying their bills and affording Christmas. The Prime Minister is so weak that he cannot convince his own side, satisfying no one and inflaming them all. We all want to stop the boats, but many on the Government Benches now agree with us that this plan is unworkable.
Unlike the Home Secretary yesterday, perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us how the plan will work. How many illegal migrants will be sent to Rwanda? The treaty says that the number is capped, and the small print says that it is just 100 people. What is the extent of our reciprocal arrangement to take refugees from Rwanda? Will we take more from Rwanda than we are sending there, and when will this happen? The Northern Ireland Secretary did not have a clue this morning.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that anyone who loses the right to remain in Rwanda—for example, those who commit serious criminal offences—must be returned to the UK? We now learn that it was the Rwandan Government who insisted that international law must be upheld. Is it the Government’s view that international treaties did need to be overridden? The Home Secretary could not say how the treaty and the Bill deal with appeals and legal challenges. Can the Leader of the House assure us that this policy will not get clogged up in the courts all over again? The Prime Minister did not convince people just now.
Can the Leader of the House commit herself to publishing the Government’s estimates of the costs of this plan? The Prime Minister has just said at his press conference that he wants the Bill to be passed in record time, so why will it not go into Committee before Christmas? The answer is that he cannot persuade his own side.
Let me say this to the Leader of the House. The truth is that this plan will not work. I know it, she knows it, they know it. That is why the Immigration Minister resigned, and that is why he said that these measures were
“a triumph of hope over experience.”
That is why the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), said this morning that the truth is that
“it won’t work and it will not stop the boats”.
She also said:
“We can’t keep failing the British people.”
This is now the third piece of legislation in two years, all trying and failing to do the same thing. It is the very definition of flogging a dead horse. But it is not just the policy that is dead, but the whole sorry Government—failed, divided, defunct and incapable of governing.
Finally, in further evidence of the Government’s death throes, this week the Prime Minister suffered his first Commons defeat, over the infected blood scandal. So off is their judgment that they could not even support a measured, reasonable amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) to set up a body to administer compensation immediately, as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff, who led the inquiry. On reflection, does the Leader of the House not think that they have just got this one badly wrong, and will she now ensure that this amendment survives the passage of the Bill? In fact, the Government’s former Paymaster General told the infected blood inquiry:
“I believe it to be inevitable that the Government will need to provide substantial compensation... I believe we should begin preparing for this now, before the inquiry reports”,
adding that it is “a moral obligation.”
That Minister wrote to the now Prime Minister, then the Chancellor, twice to press their case, never to get a reply. That Minister is now the Leader of the House, so can she tell us: does she still agree with herself?
Penny Mordaunt
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute and sending my sympathies to the families of Alistair Darling and Glenys Kinnock. I did not know Glenys Kinnock, but I did know Alistair a little, and we will miss his very dry sense of humour. I am sure that all our thoughts are with their friends and families. I also wish Mr Speaker a speedy recovery.
I will also take this opportunity to wish Jewish people around the world a happy Hanukkah. It is a festival of light overcoming darkness, and that is as relevant today as it was thousands of years ago. I know the celebrations will be more difficult this year for everyone, but I also know that Jewish people across this country will celebrate over these eight days as a symbol of Jewish pride. I am sure all in this place will want to wish everyone celebrating “Chag Hanukkah sameach.”
The hon. Lady raises the important matter of the infected blood scandal, and she is right: I was the Minister who set up the compensation scheme. I felt it important that it run concurrently with the inquiry, rather than having to wait until the inquiry reported and then set up that piece of work. Sir Robert Francis has done a very good job and the Minister for the Cabinet Office is now doing the heavy lifting on putting the scheme together. I have met with him on several occasions, and I know he is completely committed to that and is working hard on it. I point out to the hon. Lady that I could not have got the compensation scheme study established without the blessing of the Chancellor at the time. That person is now Prime Minister, and I know that he is committed to delivering on it.
I want to reassure all those who are infected and affected by the scandal that this Government have not only established an inquiry, after many decades of this injustice being done, but established a compensation study. We have done that for a reason, because we wish to deliver and bring justice to this group of people. We are the first Government to have done that and, if we can do that in short order, I think that would be something to be very proud of.
It is great to see the Labour party channelling the right of the Conservative party—channelling Mrs Thatcher recently on borders, on fiscal responsibility and on her crusade for workers, wealth creators, carers and protectors. Unfortunately, the party is simultaneously plotting to destroy all that she built and stood for. I knew Margaret Thatcher, and I can tell the hon. Lady that the Leader of the Opposition is no Margaret Thatcher. It will take rather more than a light perm, pearls and a handbag for him to pull off that look. He will need to get a backbone. He will need to get some principles. He will need to rethink the Labour party’s stance on our Rwanda policy and our border controls. He will need to rethink borrowing £28 billion more. He might also like to stand up for the public and support our minimum service levels agreements. He might like to reject the demands of the TUC, which wants to repeal all the reforms that Maggie brought in. He might like to call out the British Medical Association’s cruel plans to cancel operations and cancel Christmas for thousands of elderly people in care. He might like to call out the immoral ask of unions to transport workers, who will have to forgo pay over Christmas. In fairness, the great lady did say:
“You turn if you want to”,
and Labour’s leader has jolly well done so, several times on his leadership pledges and on almost every policy announced since he became leader. If she was the iron lady, he is the ironic man.
The hon. Lady asked about Rwanda. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). He helped the Prime Minister reduce boat crossings by a third in the last year—more than any Minister and Prime Minister have achieved. We must ensure that our asylum and immigration systems are fit for purpose, and we must protect and control our borders—the public are right in their demand that we do so. The treaty and the legislation will enable us to operationalise the Rwanda policy. Will they be enough to do all we need to do? No, but we will have other tools as well. Will they help to give us more options and to deter people from making the terrible crossing across the channel? Yes, they will.
The Opposition have put forward no alternative plan. My question to them is: what is the objection? It cannot be a legal one, because the policy does not break international law, and nor does it blur the distinction between lawmakers and those who interpret the law. It cannot be a moral objection, because it is a moral crusade to use every tool that we have to end the trafficking of human beings. It cannot be a policy objection, because the Labour party has no alternative policy. It has voted against every single measure that we have introduced to protect our borders. It voted against the last Bill more than 70 times. Labour has fought us on ending free movement and the deportation of foreign criminals, and it has said it would take an additional 110,000 people per year from Europe. As I said, ironic.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Last night, the Labour-led administration at Staffordshire Moorlands District Council voted to increase council allowances by 44%, at a cost of £400,000 to council tax payers. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about local authority spending and how we can make sure that council tax payers get value for money?
Penny Mordaunt
As my right hon. Friend asked her question, there were audible gasps across the Chamber. That is an incredible lack of local political leadership. Council tax payers in her district will be disappointed to hear that news. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure that it would be well attended. I am sure that everyone would urge restraint and want to ensure the best value possible for people’s hard-earned cash.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is tempting to forestall and dismantle now any spin that the Leader of the House may be inclined to bring up on Scottish education issues, given Westminster’s shocking record. Following her outburst against Scotland’s health service workers last week, I must clear up some things. Scotland watches her “odd” weekly rants, as the Scottish press dubs them, with concern and alarm. Let me give some useful facts for her and Scotland about the Scottish NHS: health funding is at record highs; staffing levels are also at a record high, with far more staff per head than England; we have the best performing A&E units and the highest number of GPs per head in the UK, no prescriptions charges, and still not a single day lost to industrial disputes in the Scottish NHS. There is always room for improvement but, as the Leader of the House reaches for her latest penny dreadful script, she can rest assured that I will be happy to set the record straight, wherever her imagination takes her.
Meanwhile, the Government plumb new depths with their immigration panic measures, which are so damaging to Scotland in particular. The Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley has written:
“A friend has messaged me in a blind panic”.
If they fall in love and marry someone from overseas, must they have an income of £38,700 to settle here? He went on to say:
“Something like 75% of us earn less than that. Is it fair to limit family formation to the rich? Is it conservative…to divide families?
Of course, it is fine if someone is rich, so maybe it is.
If we, our children or our grandchildren fall in love with someone from another country—many of us do so on our travels; I am living proof of that—they will not be able to join us here unless we have guaranteed earnings nearing £39,000. Cue a further exodus of our young people from these shores to other countries with a more enlightened approach to migration and their citizens’ human rights. Even worse, those who have already gone through the process and who thought that they had won the right to live here in peace will have to come up with that figure the next time their visa is extended. Should Parliament not have debated these extreme measures first? Can the Leader of the House defend this shameful policy, or are she and other Ministers threatening to resign?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady. I would ask her to go and have a look at the SNP’s record on education. I have spoken about that in the last two business question sessions, so I shall not detain the House any longer on it. I think everyone in this Chamber is aware of the SNP’s appalling record on destroying the education system in Scotland—the only people who are not are those in charge of it.
The hon. Lady mentioned the NHS and pay settlements, and the theme of her question is really values and morality. Does she think it would be moral if a Government denied faster NHS treatment to its citizens post covid because they did not want to send them to an English hospital? I understand that the former Health Secretary made that offer to the First Minister and it was rejected. Is it moral to offer a pay deal, as she boasts, to public sector workers, including NHS workers, without a plan to pay for it? Come to think of it, is it moral to withhold funds designated for business rate relief from businesses? Would she describe it as moral if a Government denied their citizens the ability to have a civil partnership—she speaks of relationships—with their opposite-sex partner for a year, including those who were terminally ill, because they did not want the UK Government to legislate on their behalf?
While the hon. Lady is looking up the SNP’s record on education, I would ask her also to check how many concurrent police investigations there are into the SNP’s antics. Owing to her party’s antics, I am afraid her quest to take the moral high ground is stuck at a subterranean level. But given that she has, as is standard SNP operating procedure, played the man as well as the ball, I will set the record straight on my own record with regard to refugees. I spent time over two years looking after the most desperate and vulnerable people in the eastern bloc after the Romanian revolution. More recently, I have spent time on the water in the Mediterranean and northern Libya tracking migration and people-trafficking routes. When I was in Greece and Italy, I saw how the EU’s biometric scanners in its southern ports had not even been uncovered and unwrapped, and how Europe’s security was being failed. I have opened my home to refugees: I have been hosting a Ukrainian refugee since May last year, and before that I offered my home to Afghan refugees.
I can tell the hon. Lady that migration is one of the most critical issues facing our country and the world, and that the global rules on it are broken. I have made it my business to understand how we can fix them—that is our duty—and it will take global leadership to build the tools to rewrite those rules. If we do it, I think other nations will follow. I would ask her to really check what her duty is in this manner and consider supporting our legislation.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Yesterday the Welsh language broadcaster S4C published the most damning and shocking report about bullying within the organisation and the fear in which staff had to conduct their duties and responsibilities. That is a publicly funded organisation. May we have a debate on this issue and on the report so that we can properly consider how we can offer the best stability for the channel, as well as offering a bright future for those who work for it? It is extremely important for Welsh culture, the Welsh language, and Welsh jobs and industry in this vital sector.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this shocking situation. S4C is an incredibly important service to culture and education, and we want that organisation also to enshrine UK and Welsh values at its heart. Given that Culture, Media and Sport questions is not until 11 January, I will write this afternoon on his behalf and ensure that the Culture Secretary has heard of this appalling situation. I hope that it will swiftly become a happier one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for next Thursday. Before those two debates, there will be a Select Committee statement on a Home Affairs Committee report on human trafficking, which will be published tomorrow. I also thank her for our meeting earlier this week and reiterate my request that she gives us an early indication of any Backbench Business Committee time in the week beginning 8 January so that we can allocate that business prior to the Christmas recess.
In my role as Chair of the Committee, Members from across the House often ask me questions, thinking that I benefit from a level of inside knowledge or political insight. One question that I am repeatedly asked is, “Do you know the recess dates following Christmas?” On behalf of Members across the House, I ask that question of the Leader of the House; possibly she will let us know next week, before the Christmas recess.
I have been contacted by a number of constituents regarding the new proposed earnings threshold of £38,700 to be eligible for a spouse visa. Will that new threshold apply to new applicants only or to existing visa holders already resident in the UK and validly here, looking to extend their stay? It could jeopardise families who are legally here, gainfully employed and making a positive contribution if they are possibly having the rules changed underneath them.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his always helpful adverts for future Backbench Business debates. As he knows, I will endeavour to give him early warning of when other time can be scheduled; I will endeavour to do that shortly.
I completely agree on recess dates and hope to be able to update colleagues very soon. That point is well understood not just in terms of people’s ability to organise family life but for its particular significance for those right hon. and hon. Members who are farmers. I will therefore endeavour to do that very shortly.
I had anticipated the type of questions that the hon. Gentleman would ask. I am sure that there are particular sectors on which people will want to focus, such as armed forces personnel, so I have asked the Department to produce some further briefing on this matter and to share it with all hon. Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will be prioritising those who did not contribute to the earlier urgent question and statement.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Can we have a debate on antisemitism in higher education? This week, the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn appeared before the United States Congress, and when asked repeatedly about whether calling for genocide of Jews breaks the university code of conduct and was harassment, they said that it “depends on the context” and whether the speech turned into actual genocidal conduct. It is impossible to imagine a call for mass murder of any other minority group being said to depend on the context. A call for the mass murder of black people or gay people would rightly not be tolerated for a moment. This is top-level institutional Jew hatred at the highest levels of academia, and sadly universities in the United Kingdom are also infested with antisemitism. Does the Leader of the House agree that British students must be protected from such poison?
Penny Mordaunt
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The individuals from Harvard, MIT and Penn who gave that jaw-dropping evidence earlier this week have done the academic community a favour: this should be a wake-up call on how abhorrent some of these policies are and how they are being interpreted. It is amazing that it needs to be said, but if a code of conduct permits the advocation and promotion of mass murder, it might need a redraft.
There is a wider point here: we look to these academic institutions to be the guardian of the values that we hold dear. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are very important to academic inquiry and our democratic values, but we cannot in any way tolerate the promotion of genocide and the extermination of a group of people. It is absolutely abhorrent. I commend the work of the Union of Jewish Students, which does a huge amount on our campuses. It has delivered more than 100 anti- semitism awareness training sessions to about 3,000-plus campus leaders in the UK. We should support its work, and I hope that every vice-chancellor and university board will be asking to see these policies to ensure that they are in good shape.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Sellafield is one of our most sensitive sites for energy and national security. New reports in The Guardian have revealed a damaging and potentially ongoing cyber-security breach by groups linked to Russia and China. They call into question the management and workplace culture, the performance of senior staff, who are now under investigation by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the response and performance of the regulator itself. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or ministerial statement on those deeply worrying revelations?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the reports that have been in the press, which I know are of concern to her. As the date for the next Home Office questions has not yet been announced, I will write on her behalf to the Security Minister and ask whether he and his officials can update her.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Sometimes there is a sporting achievement that simply cannot go without comment. Over the last year, Red Bull Racing smashed through every record in the Formula 1 season, winning 21 of the 22 races. That magic can happen on track only because of the incredible British business, based up the road from my constituency in Milton Keynes, and its innovation, excellence, skills and engineering superiority. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Christian Horner and the whole Red Bull team on their success this year, and can we have a debate on the value of motor sport and those skills to the wider economy?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the whole House will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Red Bull team. We should be proud that this country is the home of motor sport. It is not just the many businesses in his local area, but the incredible supply chain across the whole of the UK. He will know how to apply for a debate. I am sure that many Members would wish to attend. I shall borrow from the legendary Murray Walker in saying that the request for a debate on this very important topic is go, go, go!
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Moles, Bath’s wonderful grassroots music venue, was sadly forced to close its doors last week. It was an incubator for many new talents and gave many household names their first chance on stage. Without grassroots venues, there will be no music industry. More than 100 small music venues were forced to close their doors in the UK last year due to cost pressures that they could not meet. Can we have a debate in Government time about the importance of our small music venues?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about that, and I am sure the hon. Lady speaks for many of her constituents who will miss that facility. We have managed to get a lot of organisations through the terrible few years that we have had, particularly with the pandemic, but we need to build back what we have lost and organisations that are fragile. She will know that the next questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are on 11 January. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is very much looking at ensuring that we are disbursing all the available support right across the country, and that it reaches every constituency. I encourage the hon. Lady to raise the matter with her then.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Last week, for Small Business Saturday, I crowned the winner of my new independent shop of the year competition. On The Brakes is a fantastic bike shop in Leigh-on-Sea specialising in bike maintenance, custom builds, and education and bike repairs. It stormed to victory. Given that 98% of businesses in Southend West are small and micro, is that not living proof of the importance of independent businesses to our economy? Could we have a debate, please, in Government time, on the importance of independent businesses to our high streets and to our national economy?
Penny Mordaunt
I pass on my congratulations, as I am sure does everyone in the Chamber, to On The Brakes for all its work. It is clearly valued by its local community. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who took part in Small Business Saturday last weekend. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, locally and nationally. They also provide amazing community facilities and support for so many in our constituencies. She will know how to apply for a debate, and I am sure it will be well attended.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Many famous people have been born at the Whittington maternity unit, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). This summer, I had the joy of visiting the maternity unit with my good friend my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), but we noticed that the facilities are desperately old and crumbling. Does the Leader of the House agree that we desperately need a debate on maternity units across the UK and that we urgently need more funding, so that the buildings can come up to a really good standard to match our aspirations, as outlined in the Care Quality Commission reports, which say that 55% of our units across the UK are not up to scratch? We need those crucial amounts of funding, so that we can bring up the standard of those crumbling buildings to match the aspirations of women giving birth in our maternity units.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that the quality of maternity care, which is not just about healthcare practice but about the facilities, has been a particular recent focus of the Department of Health and Social Care. We have a capital programme that is regenerating our facilities and building new ones, too. Health questions dates have not been announced yet, so I will write on the hon. Lady’s behalf and flag this matter with the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Every single week, I receive correspondence from and meet parents who are simply exasperated by the wait they face for a child and adolescent mental health services assessment for their children. For children to be educated properly and looked after in the best possible way, it is paramount that children receive their assessments as soon as possible and that families do not face unacceptable waits of up to three years, as many do in Darlington. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must speed up CAMHS assessments? Can we have a debate on that important issue?
Penny Mordaunt
A three-year wait is a truly shocking statistic, and my hon. Friend’s constituents should not find themselves in that situation. I thank him for what he is doing to campaign on this issue. He will know that we are investing an extra £2.3 billion a year by March next year to support an additional 2 million people, which includes 345,000 children and young people. The situation in his constituency sounds acute, and I will write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on his behalf this afternoon and ask that her officials and Ministers get in touch with his office to see what can be done in the interim to bring that waiting time down and ensure that every child and young person is getting the support they need.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the career of Geraldine Bradley, the catering services manager at Ballykeel Primary School in County Antrim in my constituency? Geraldine Bradley has worked there for 42 years, without a single absentee day or sick day. That is an absolutely incredible contribution to public service. She caters currently for 430 pupils in that school, and has done so with excellence. Over the years, she has fed and nourished thousands of pupils across the constituency. How can I best encourage other people in the public sector who engage in public service with such enthusiasm to look at the example that Geraldine has set and apply it to their own careers?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure we will all join the hon. Gentleman in sending our thanks, congratulations and good wishes to Geraldine. What an incredible public servant, and what a life of service. She should be held up as an example to all in the public sector, and I am sure that as well as providing the nutrition that the pupils at that school need, she has provided many happy times and happy memories. We wish her well, and the hon. Gentleman has provided the answer to his own question by putting that on the record today.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The headline of Christina Lamb’s article in The Sunday Times at the weekend was
“First Hamas fighters raped her. Then they shot her in the head”.
In the light of the profoundly disturbing revelations in that article about sexual violence committed by Hamas on 7 October, may we have a ministerial statement so that the Government can set out the action they will take to raise this issue in international fora such as the UN, some of which have been far too slow to recognise and condemn that aspect of the Hamas atrocity?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing us to state on the record the appalling atrocities that many women—many of whom did not survive those attacks—had to endure at the hands of Hamas, including rape, but also the most horrific torture and mutilation. I think we are all very disappointed that organisations to which we look to show leadership on these matters were not swifter and more robust in their condemnation of those appalling atrocities and acts.
We spend a great deal of time thinking about our own aid allocation in this respect, and fund many schemes around the world that have had huge success in reducing violence against women and girls. I will ensure that the Minister with that responsibility in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has heard what my right hon. Friend has said, and we will reflect on what more we can do and what more we can say we expect from the organisations that we work with on these matters around the world.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Government have rightly made time in this Chamber to debate that terrible conflict. The Israel-Gaza war is equally horrific, from the killing of Israelis on 7 October to the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians that continue daily. No doubt the Backbench Business Committee would look sympathetically on a request for a debate, but should this not be debated in Government time? May we have a day’s debate on it as soon as possible?
Penny Mordaunt
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s request. On his first point, he will know that the Foreign Secretary has been in Washington talking with our partners both about Ukraine and the ongoing situation in Israel and Gaza. I will certainly ensure that both he and his Minister in the Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), have heard the hon. Gentleman’s request.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Our hard-pressed and hard-working police have had their leave cancelled, have been required to work overtime and are at breaking point just policing organised protests. To make it even worse, the Just Stop Oil brigade refuses to engage with the police about its protests. The Metropolitan police says that it has now cost taxpayers £20 million to deal with those Just Stop Oil protesters, so may we have an oral statement on police funding and what will be done to stop those protesters bringing London to a halt?
Penny Mordaunt
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all the work that the police have done. Since we have given them some new powers, they have done an incredible job ensuring that activists do not disrupt traffic or stop emergency vehicles and keeping areas running, including our major motorways and, in particular, our capital city. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those protests are costing taxpayers and using police resources—if he were to found a campaign called Just Stop It, Just Stop Oil, I think it would be very well supported. I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard his concerns about resourcing.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
First, may I associate myself with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Alistair Darling? He was someone I knew. He was a huge figure in Scottish politics, and the perfect example of a public servant. I also wish to pay tribute to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the former Conservative MP for Edinburgh West, who was always the perfect gentleman and another example to us all of public service.
A constituent of mine recently raised the issue that he and a number of other marines had been exposed to asbestos during a training exercise. They are currently trying to pursue an adequate response from the Ministry of Defence on this potential breach of health and safety. Can the Government find time for us to discuss both this issue and the general issue of how we better protect our armed forces on training exercises?
Penny Mordaunt
May I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Lady about Lord Douglas-Hamilton? I am sure that all Members would join her in that.
The hon. Lady raises a very important matter. I know that, in recent years, the Ministry of Defence has been looking at how it can mitigate things that happen and injuries caused on training exercises, from its joint service publication to ensuring that people have the right equipment and that it is all in good order. The issue that she raises would be of most interest to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I will make sure that he has heard what she has said, and I think the topic would be an excellent one for an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Barrow and Furness recently celebrated 150 years of naval shipbuilding, supplying the submarines that keep us safe now and long into the future. As the shipyard delivers Dreadnought and now leans into the opportunity of AUKUS, it remains pivotal to the UK and the world’s security. Given that position, I have joined a campaign to try to secure for Barrow and Furness the title of royal town. The initiative is supported by the Lord Lieutenant, BAE Systems, the local council, CandoFM, the Rotary Club and local arts and community groups. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might be able to advise me on how we can gain Government support for this initiative.
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign, which sounds like a very good initiative. I know that he is doing a whole raft of things to put the town of Barrow on the map. He is right to say that this contribution provides security not just to the UK, but to the world, particularly because of the AUKUS agreement and our work with our Five Eyes partners. He will know that royal title applications are run through the Cabinet Office. Each decision is made on a case-by-case basis. I would be very happy to meet him and give him any further information that he needs as his campaign gathers and generates support.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Government claim to be on the side of business. Mayphil Industries, a global company with headquarters in Merthyr Tydfil, has been trying, with my support, to secure a visa for essential training for a senior executive from Sri Lanka. The visa was approved on 3 October, but has not been issued. Two months really is not satisfactory. Perhaps, if the Government have an Immigration Minister, we could have a debate in Government time to discuss what can be done to support situations such as this and to make progress and improve the service for constituents.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that situation. That should not be the case at all. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Office is providing individual surgery opportunities for Members of Parliament, either face to face or remotely, so that Members can chase up these issues. If he gives me the details, I would be very happy to do that immediately after this session. This business should not be held up getting in the person that it needs. As the House has had my undivided attention, I do not have the latest news on appointments, but I shall also ensure that the Minister for Immigration has heard his concerns.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 114?
[That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England and Wales) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 1164), dated 31 October 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 October 2023, be annulled.]
If so, is she impressed by the fact that the motion has the support of not only Conservative Members but quite a lot of Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? The motion calls on the Government to bring forward a debate before the ban on XL bully-type dogs is implemented at the end of December. She will know that some 650,000 people across the country have already signed a petition against what the Government are proposing, because it is not only unfair but very vague. Many dog owners do not know whether their dogs will be included. This is most unsatisfactory legislation. Should it not be debated in this House before it is implemented?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record, and I think that is very helpful. He will know the motivation for bringing in the legislation, but of course we need to provide clarity and reassurance to pet owners. Given that the date of the next DEFRA questions has not been announced, I will write on his behalf to alert the Secretary of State to early-day motion 114 and to ensure he has heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay a short tribute to Alistair Darling. Alistair and I worked together in home affairs throughout Roy Hattersley and Neil Kinnock’s leadership. He was a great colleague and friend, and of course did a magnificent job as Chancellor in our darkest days. Glenys Kinnock was also a long-term, old friend. My daughter worked for her as a special adviser. She was family, and we miss her terribly.
This is something of a personal appeal to the Leader of the House. I am a pretty robust individual, and I think everyone in the House knows I am quite resilient. However, about 18 months ago I had a death threat from a gentleman who said he was coming to London to kill me. Over these last 18 months, this has absolutely haunted me. My home is now a fortress, my office is well protected and everything physically has been done to support me, but there is very little support, or not enough support, when a Member gets into this sort of situation.
The gentleman who was coming to do nasty things to me was sectioned, but when he came out of the mental health hospital, all the administration told me was, “He is out, and he knows where you live”. I have to say that this 18 months has been a time of dreadful personal stress, and if it had not been for the support of my family and friends, I do not think I would have got through it. I have experienced at first hand what it is like to be frightened to stand close to the railway station platform or on the tube, and to be looking behind you all the time. My mental health, and I am a robust individual, has been very much put under stress, but this should not happen to Members of the House. May I make an appeal to the Leader of the House to look at this kind of support—not just at the huge amount of money that has been spent on my fortress home, but at individual support—because I think every Member deserves better?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure I do so on behalf of everyone in the Chamber and all colleagues, for saying that. Of course, he will know that Mr Speaker and the House authorities have done a huge amount of additional work, including some more recent things, to ensure that all colleagues are protected and have the physical security and support they need. However, he is absolutely right to put on record that this has a toll on an individual’s wellbeing, resilience and mental health. It is a terrible thing to have to endure. Of course, right hon. and hon. Members endure this in relation not just to harm to themselves, but to their families, their children and their staff, which is a very great weight to carry.
I will certainly ensure that the House authorities, and Mr Speaker when he returns, have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will see what more we can do to support Members. I add that we have concluded the largest survey of Members on this, and I know many Members filled it in with their staff. For mental health and resilience, whether because of threats or the other issues people have to deal with—I know my staff were traumatised when we were dealing with Operation Pitting, for example—additional mental health and pastoral support is very much needed. I know there is an action plan following the survey, and I thank all Members who took part in it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for his brave contribution? That was difficult to do, and I am sorry to hear what he has been going through.
To segue inelegantly from that, in Oxfordshire I have been contacted by residents who rely on their pets for their mental health, who are concerned that when they go on walks, their pets go into rivers and then get sick. I can understand their concern because discharges in Oxfordshire are up 18%. We heard just this week that the water quality at Port meadow in Oxfordshire has been rated poor for the third year in a row, which means it risks losing its bathing water status. Will the Leader of the House help me press the Government to take this threat to pets seriously? In answer to a parliamentary question, they say they do not measure it. How can we get them to?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency and local area. The date of the next Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions has not been announced, so I will write to the Secretary of State to make sure that he has heard what she has said. She will know there has been recent debate about what the Environment Agency and other monitoring bodies are actually monitoring, how it is being monitored and what is in the public domain, and about making sure that the monitoring systems of individual water companies are really fit for purpose. I will write on the hon. Lady’s behalf today.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an emerging problem? The Department for Work and Pensions requires an estimated 5,000 net increase in staff every quarter if it is to undertake the increased workload arising from recent Government announcements, including some very recent ones. Yet the shocking new dossier published this week by the Public and Commercial Services Union warns that the target is nowhere near being met. Staff morale is at rock bottom due to excessive workloads, real-terms pay cuts and new restrictions on home working. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the staffing crisis in the DWP, and will she urge her ministerial colleagues to meet the PCS trade union as a matter of urgency to try to find a way forward?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this to the House’s attention and mine. I will certainly raise it with the Secretary of State. It is incredibly important for the general public that staff are able to answer their inquiries. There may be more we can do in this place in providing swift answers to people in the DWP who will want to know what recent announcements mean for them, and I think we can also provide a great deal of reassurance to members of the public in that respect. The next Work and Pensions questions will be on 18 December, and he can raise the matter then, but I shall also write on his behalf.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Punitive disciplinary policies in schools are significantly harming children’s mental health, particularly neurodivergent children. It seems that multi-academy trust leaders are not accountable for their actions and are impossible to hold to account, not least at South Bank MAT, where children are experiencing significant harm, school refusal and an escalation in issues with their mental wellbeing. Can we have an urgent debate on calling the leadership of multi-academy trusts to account and ensuring that governance structures are fit for purpose?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. On the general point, I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what she has said, and she can raise it directly with her next week. If the hon. Lady wants to pass on to me the specific details of the academy trust she is speaking about, I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has also heard about that. There are mechanisms for holding trusts to account on certain things, and ensuring that they are meeting children’s special educational needs is one of those things. I shall make sure that the Department has heard about it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for the opportunity to ask a question on the state of freedom of religion or belief. Many events in the House this week have rightly celebrated the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration on human rights, including a debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon in which I will be participating. However, in the Philippines this week at least four people were killed and many more injured in an attack on a Catholic mass, for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility. An investigation into that attack is ongoing. Will the Leader of the House join me in denouncing the attack, calling for care and justice for the victims and assuring them that they have the support of the House of Commons, the greatest seat of democracy and the mother of Parliaments, and that we are doing our best for them?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again affording the House the opportunity to send our thoughts, prayers and good wishes to everyone who has been affected by that appalling attack. Every week, he brings the attention of the House and the world to such events, which perhaps do not grab a lot of headlines. It is important that we send a clear message that we are focused on these issues and will do everything we can to ensure that everyone in the world is allowed to exercise their religious freedom. I thank him again for enabling us to do that this week following the appalling atrocity in the Philippines. I thank him also for the advert for the important debate this afternoon.
Sir Christopher Chope
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can take only points of order that relate directly to the business statement. Is that the case?
Sir Christopher Chope
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answering my question about early-day motion 114, the Leader of the House said that she would write to the DEFRA Minister about it. However, when the subject was debated on 27 November in Westminster Hall, I asked the DEFRA Minister whether he would facilitate a debate on the statutory instrument, saying that it is
“obviously of great concern to many Members of Parliament and even more so to our constituents, before it comes into force on 31 December”.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), responded:
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course he will be fully aware that it is for parliamentary business managers to arrange such debates, but I will certainly have a conversation with those business managers following this debate.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 223-24WH.]
I wonder whether that discussion ever took place. We are now in a situation where the Leader of the House says she relies on DEFRA to organise a debate, and a DEFRA Minister says it is for parliamentary business managers to organise. Who is in charge, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think that was a slight extension of business questions rather than a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman’s point of order that he wishes to know how to gain further clarification on the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is lucky that the Leader of the House is still here, and she indicates that she wishes to make a response to his point of order.
Penny Mordaunt
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is a very experienced and diligent parliamentarian. He has done everything right: he has pursued the Department and not had satisfaction from it, and when right hon. and hon. Members do not have satisfaction from a Department, they must bring their issues to business questions. I hope they know that I will always follow up on their behalf, and I will do so in the case of my hon. Friend. I will ensure that conversation takes place and I will put pen to paper this afternoon.
BBC Funding
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the BBC.
The BBC is a great British institution and plays a vital role in our culture and creative economy. It broadcasts our values and identities all over the world, reaching hundreds of millions of people every day. In January 2022, the Government and BBC agreed a six-year funding settlement, which froze the licence fee at £159 for two years. The two-year freeze has already saved every fee payer £17 over 2022 and 2023. That settlement provided vital support for households when inflation was at its highest, while giving the BBC the funding it needed to deliver on its remit.
Under the terms of the settlement, the licence fee must now increase annually in line with the consumer prices index, with the first increase due in April 2024. The Government are committed to supporting families as much as possible during these difficult times. We recognise that bill rises are never welcome and family budgets remain under pressure.
Today, I am announcing that we will use the annual rate of CPI in September to calculate the increase of the BBC licence fee in April 2024. This is the same way the Government calculate inflation-linked increases to state pensions and benefits. The decision means next year’s licence fee increase will be kept as low as possible. In April, the licence fee will rise by 6.7%, to £169.50 annually. That will minimise the rise for households, keeping it to £10.50 over the year, or 88p per month, rather than a rise of £14.50 that would have happened under the previous CPI measure.
While we recognise that household budgets remain under pressure, the decision, alongside the two-year freeze, will save individual licence fee payers over £37 by the end of 2024. These interventions support households, while providing the BBC with £3.8 billion to produce its world-leading content. The Government engaged with both the BBC and S4C to understand the impacts on the finances of both broadcasters. The decision will ensure that S4C, which is also funded from the licence fee, can maintain its unique role in promoting the Welsh language and supporting our public service broadcasting landscape.
Although we have taken steps to ensure that the uplift is kept as low as possible, we recognise that a £10.50 increase will still be felt by licence fee payers. The number of licence fee payers is also declining, with an increasingly competitive media landscape. We need to make sure that the cost of the BBC does not rise exponentially, and that it is not borne by a smaller number of fee payers. We are already seeing an increasing number of households choosing not to hold a TV licence. The number of households holding TV licences fell by 400,000 last year, and has declined by around 1.7 million since 2017-18. That is placing increasing pressure on the BBC’s licence fee income.
We are also seeing a rapidly changing media landscape, with more ways for audiences to watch content. The reach and viewing of broadcast TV fell significantly in 2022, with weekly reach falling from 83% in 2021 to 79% in 2022. As this trend continues, linking the TV licence to watching live TV will become increasingly anachronistic, as audience viewing habits continue to move to digital and on-demand media.
We know that if we want the BBC to succeed, we cannot freeze its income, but at the same time we cannot ask households to pay more to support the BBC indefinitely. We are already supporting the BBC to realise commercial opportunities that will make it more financially sustainable, and will continue to explore them provisionally with the BBC.
The situation clearly shows the need to consider the BBC’s funding arrangements to make sure they are fair for the public and sustainable for the BBC. Therefore, I am also announcing that today the Government are launching a review of the BBC’s funding model. The review will look at how we can ensure the funding model is fair for the public, sustainable for the long term, and supports the BBC’s vital role in growing our creative industries.
The review will be led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and supported by an expert panel. It will assess a range of options for funding the BBC. We are clear that we want the BBC to succeed. The review will include looking at how the BBC can increase its commercial revenues to reduce the burden on licence fee payers. Given pressure on household incomes, I can explicitly rule out this review looking at creating any new taxes. The findings of the review will support the Government to make an informed choice on whether to consult the public on moving to alternative funding models. That would take place as part of the charter review process, in which any final decision on reforming the BBC’s funding model would be taken.
The BBC is a great national institution. We want to ensure that it is fit for the present and whatever the future holds, while keeping costs down for the public. That means ensuring that the BBC is supported by a funding model that is fair to audiences, supports the creative industries, and is sustainable in the age of digital and on-demand media. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Working people listening to the Secretary of State’s pitiful comments on support with the cost of living are not fooled. They see exactly what this is. We have had weak, mealy-mouthed platitudes that will make no material difference to their lives.
Thirty-three pence a month per household is what I understand to be the difference between today’s announcement and the deal the Government had already agreed to. That is not nothing, but does the Secretary of State really think that it will even touch the sides? Are she and the Prime Minister so out of touch that they think that will get people through the Tory cost of living crisis? They crashed the economy, sending mortgages and rents sky-high. They hiked taxes on working people. They have presided over 13 years of stagnant economic growth.
What is the cost of the Government’s announcement? The creative industries are one of the best sources of economic growth and quality jobs in the country, and the BBC is the biggest commissioner of work in the creative industries. Has the Secretary of State worked out the impact that choosing that particular inflationary measure will have on economic growth and jobs? Has she worked out the effect that it will have on the other creative businesses the BBC commissions and their supply chains? Has she worked out what difference it will make to the BBC’s crucial role as our soft-power superpower, promoting brand Britain around the world? Has she worked out what the impact will be on democracy, given the BBC’s role as the most trusted source of news anywhere in the world?
When it comes to the funding model review, I understand that the terms of reference are overtly focused on the commercial side of the BBC. I did not hear a word about the public service element of the BBC. The Secretary of State mentions an expert panel. Can she tell us who will be on it? What timetable will it work to? Where will the public service element feature in the Government’s terms of reference? Have the Government actually given up on the BBC as a public service broadcaster?
I am afraid to say that it all sounds like yet more broken Tory promises. This is no way to treat one of our great institutions, and no way to treat the millions of people who work at the BBC, their partners and the people around the country who value them so much. Let us not forget that this comes on the back of a two- year freeze that has already had a damaging impact.
This is just the latest sign of chaotic decision making by a flailing, failing Government led by a Prime Minister who is too weak to control his own party and by Ministers who make working people pay for their mistakes. It is a sign of the disdain that the Tories have for the role that there have been 12 Secretaries of State for DCMS in 13 years; it tops the reshuffle charts, bringing instability to a Department for economic growth.
Our great institutions, our public services and working people just cannot take any more of this chaos. Labour backs the BBC. We will grow our creative industries and spread the benefits across the country. A general election cannot come a moment too soon.
Lucy Frazer
I think the shadow Secretary of State needs to live in the real world like the rest of us. People are struggling with the cost of living, and the Government have continued to take steps to protect them. She needs to live in the real world, in which the media landscape is changing. It is totally inappropriate just to sit still and do nothing, because that would destroy the BBC and make it unable to live in this changing world, and it would do nothing to protect licence fee payers. If that is the Labour plan, I do not want see it.
The shadow Secretary of State talked about what we are doing for working families. She knows that this is not the only step that we are taking. We have spent £97 billion supporting families across the country, saving a typical family about £3,300, and cut inflation by half.
The hon. Lady mentions the creative industries. She might have forgotten that since I have been in this role, I have used tax reliefs to support the creative industries. The Labour party voted against that. In fact, the Conservative party has brought in tax reliefs for the creative industries year on year for 10 years, and they were voted down by the Opposition on every single occasion.
Labour does not support the creative industries. The shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), said that we should be spending more money in schools not on the creative industries, but on others. Under this Conservative Government, the creative industries are growing at double the rate of the rest of the economy and employing 2 million people.
I will happily update the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on other details relating to the panel. The timetable is that the report will come into play, to me, by the autumn of 2024.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
At the risk of correcting the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), I think the Housing Minister has changed more often than the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that I do not think that anyone will go to the stake for the difference between the September CPI and others, although we can note that, were the BBC licence fee to go up by another 10%, it would still be 50p a week per household, which is probably the best value in broadcasting anywhere.
I am worried that the Government have decided, again, to make a decision without consulting Parliament. If we are to have a public broadcaster funded by a licence fee or some equivalent, Parliament should be brought in more often by Governments. This is probably the fourth time that there has been an announcement of what will happen without Parliament having been consulted first. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and others will say that Parliament should be brought in. If the choice is between the United States model and public broadcasting, Parliament ought to be able make its views known.
The House will have noticed that the Secretary of State said that the review will look at alternative options for funding the BBC and then said that she
“can…rule out…creating any new taxes.”
I thought that it was Parliament that decides whether we have taxes. The review may want to consider some kind of household payment, whatever we call it—at present it is called the licence fee; if we do not call it a tax, we call it a charge or something else—or something to be taken from existing taxation. If the BBC is a public benefit, why not add to whatever households pay for the licence fee the implied tax on the income that they use to pay it, for example? That would allow the income from existing taxes to go up.
The BBC needs defenders, and I am one of them. As long as I am here, the Government can expect detailed attention, and a great deal of support for doing sensible things.
Lucy Frazer
I, too, am a defender of the BBC. It provides an outstanding service across the world. I am proud to have seen at first hand the fantastic job that it did for Eurovision, for the coronation and for the last night of the Proms. If we were to create something that spread our values and soft power abroad, we could not do better than creating the BBC. I certainly do not want to see its services diminished, but I want to ensure that it continues to survive in this changing media world. At the moment, it is losing audiences and licence fee payers, and I want to help to support it. That is one thing that we will look at carefully in the review.
The Father of the House rightly mentions the importance of discussion and consultation. My door is open to all those who want to raise points with me. Of course, in due course, we will need to consult, and this is part of the charter review, which will involve a wider consultation exercise.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Conservatives agreed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation, but their own economic mismanagement means more misery for UK citizens. The Government are now desperately trying to wriggle on how they calculate inflation for the purposes of this agreement. There is a pattern among those on the Government Benches that they will breach an agreement, convention or protocol whenever it suits them. Let the Conservatives take responsibility for this BBC uplift, as the need for the rise is entirely due to their mismanagement of the economy.
We all have some criticisms of the BBC. Sometimes they are centred on its domestic news coverage, but the BBC goes far beyond that, extending to drama, radio, documentaries, Gaelic broadcasting and sports coverage. To those who would ding doon the public service broadcasters, I say: be very careful what you wish for. Of course, for many Tories the ideal would be GB News 24 hours a day, with Tory MPs talking to Tory MPs about Tory policies. I believe it is known as “GBeebies”, as one Tory MP after another is wheeled in to rant culture war tosh at the camera, in a pale imitation of American shock jocks. It is a breach of Ofcom rules. Democracy needs tough journalism and MPs scrutinised in long-format interviews by objective journalists.
We have seen what the cuts lead to. The BBC agreed, most foolishly, to take responsibility for over-75s’ licences, under the previous director general, Tony Hall. That has led to cuts in news, most recently at “Newsnight”, which I was once proud to serve as a reporter. The BBC opposed the Government’s reneging on their agreement on that at the time, and we have seen the results.
In the years to come, the BBC may need a different funding format, but that time is not now. In closing, may I ask the Secretary of State, on behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee, to explain why the news of the new BBC chair was leaked to the press, rather than being given directly to Committee members or the Committee Chair?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s points. He mentioned many important parts of the BBC and other outlets. I am in favour of plurality of the media, so that we get a wide variety of voices. Of course, the preferred candidate as chair been announced and they will be going before his Committee in due course.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
One important aspect of public service broadcasting is regional news. We have already experienced cuts to BBC local radio, but regional news programmes, such as the Lincolnshire and Yorkshire edition of “Look North”, which serves my constituency, are greatly valued by my constituents. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the BBC will continue with the current level of regional news broadcasts?
Lucy Frazer
The BBC is, of course, operationally independent and it is not for the Government to say what it should provide. However, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the BBC is there to provide a public service and it has a public purpose: to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the UK. The BBC must also support the creative economy across the UK. Of course regional and local news and other output is an important part of that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State to get real? I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and it has other members here. She knows that as sure as night follows day there will be the loss of journalistic jobs as a result of this cut, at a key time, when we are going into a general election and they are desperately needed. Why does she not admit that this is a revenge attack for all those times at 10-past 8 on the BBC’s “Today” programme when Ministers, having been asked questions by Nick Robinson, Mishal Husain, Justin Webb, Amol Rajan or Martha Kearney, have floundered to answer a basic, straight question? The review is an overlying threat to the BBC about its behaviour in holding this Government to account.
Lucy Frazer
I do not accept anything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the BBC can continue to provide its exceptional and outstanding service for decades to come. If we just sit on our hands and do nothing, it will be overtaken by other media outlets that are competing in the world. We need to ensure that the BBC has a sustainable financial platform from which to provide its outstanding service.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I have always loved the BBC. As a kid growing up and since, I have been blown away by the quality of its broadcasting; by its sport, music, culture, radio, nature, news and, of course, humour—even though I feel we have lost something with this endless thirst for political correctness. However, I have been increasingly concerned in recent months by the political bias creeping in, notably with individual commentary from presenters, through tweets and with inaccuracies in reporting. The BBC is a public service broadcaster; it is not a political organisation. So does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC has much more to do here to fully justify its publicly funded licence fee?
Lucy Frazer
The heart of my hon. Friend’s question is about the BBC’s impartiality. I know that the BBC strives hard to maintain impartiality, with its 10-point plan, but at its heart the BBC needs to provide an impartial service, because if it does not do so, it should not be getting licence fee payers’ money and it is just the same as every other organisation. That is why it needs to continue to strive, as I know it does, to ensure that it provides impartial output.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
We should put on the record how lucky we are to have this public service broadcaster. We have just had a statement from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about Russian interference in our democracy, where this House raised its concerns ahead of the possible election, which will perhaps come sooner rather than later. How does the Secretary of State think that doing this and cutting the BBC’s budget by £90 million is going to help resilience in the whole of society in an election year, when we know that misinformation and disinformation by malign states has never been more of a threat?
Lucy Frazer
I wish to correct the hon. Lady: we are not cutting the BBC’s budget but increasing it, by 6.7%. What we are not doing is increasing it by 9%. She will know from speaking to companies or households in her constituency whether those companies have had a 9% increase in their funding. Have the Government had a 9% increase in their funding? We are creating a careful balance to ensure that we support the BBC with this rise of 6.7% to provide those services, while thinking carefully about the cost of living and bills for households up and down the country.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her statement on restricting the increase in the BBC licence fee. I also recognise the reassurance she has given S4C, which is facing a particularly challenging time and needs stability. As she said, the licence fee still raises £3.8 billion. Departments, local authorities and most public organisations have to publish details and invoices in respect of sums in excess of £500. I have tried on two occasions in the House to introduce legislation to force the BBC to do the same. Within the review, will she consider how we can increase transparency and scrutiny of the £3.8 billion that is spent, so that we can introduce better efficiency gains and scrutinise closely where money might be wasted?
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not think it will form part of this review, but it is an interesting point that I will reflect on and consider further.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I wish to declare that I, too, am an officer of the NUJ parliamentary group—in fact, I am its co-chair. May I point out to the Minister the damaging impact of dramatic cuts already being implemented by the BBC management, including to the valued BBC local radio services, which we have discussed in this House on several occasions, to highly regarded investigative journalist jobs, most notably and recently on “Newsnight”, and to local news output? Given that inflation has been substantially higher than expected during the two-year licence fee freeze and given, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said from the Front Bench, that the BBC is the biggest commissioner of the creative industries in the UK, will the Minister, in her review of the funding model, please ensure that the BBC has enough funding to maintain the highest quality in commissioning, production and broadcasting?
Lucy Frazer
I am absolutely committed to ensuring that our creative industries continue to thrive and have set a very high ambition in that space. As I have said, I want to see the creative industries grow by £50 billion and have a million extra jobs by 2030. We are already seeing that growth, with the creative industries growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. I have helped ensure that the creative industries get tax relief. In June they had further funding of £70 million, which will leverage further private investment. There was an announcement in the recent autumn statement about further support for visual effects through the tax system. I am absolutely backing the creative industries. I want them to thrive and we are putting in place mechanisms to ensure that they survive. The BBC is part of that and is one of the things that I will take into account.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. and learned Friend. What further steps is she taking to encourage the BBC to maximise its commercial revenue in order to minimise the burden on licence fee payers?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I want to see a thriving BBC that can compete internationally and is getting further income. There are lots of opportunities for the BBC to explore, and I want to work with it very closely on those and understand them in greater deal. Whether that means international work and international charging or partnerships and joint venues, I want to make sure that the BBC has every opportunity to maximise its commercial income.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I have always been a staunch defender of the BBC, not least because my late parents met when they both worked for the corporation, so I would not be here otherwise. However, the increasing challenges for news coverage and the bias that has crept in have been of concern to my constituents. I wrote to the director-general following the broadcasting of Hamas propaganda on the attacks on the Gaza hospital. That was left up on the BBC website literally all day, creating community tensions in my constituency. There was not a word of apology, not a retraction and not even a reply from the director-general. As we approach this review, can we make sure that built into it is the requirement for absolute impartiality and fact-checking of news before it is posted?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes a really important point: because the BBC is so respected throughout the world, and because it has a reputation for providing impartial and accurate news, when it gets it wrong—in this case, it did get it wrong and it has admitted, now, that it did—the impact of that is more significant than when any other news outlet gets it wrong. Particularly on issues such as the one that my hon. Friend mentions, where there are consequences of inaccurate reporting both in the region and here, including for the Jewish community at home and the antisemitism that results from that, it is so important that the BBC takes time to reflect and makes sure that when it puts its news out, it is accurate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for providing clarity. I am sure that she is well aware of my feelings about BBC reporting, which seems to be driven to a certain leaning and by an agenda that I have issues with—others have mentioned that as well. However, some of the programming is targeted at small and specific audiences, such as the Ulster Scots—I am very proud to be an Ulster Scot and I seek more Ulster Scots programmes on the BBC regionally—or the heritage programmes, which are always beautifully done. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the tightening that is done relates to paying presenters exorbitant wages, as opposed to cutting the niche programming that is necessary for the preservation of culture and heritage, which I love?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. I must emphasise that the BBC is operationally independent. It has a duty to provide diverse news and cultural programmes that are particular and relevant to the regions, and it must fulfil that duty under the terms of the charter and its public service mission. The decisions about who the BBC employs and what it pays is a matter for it, but it has obligations relating to transparency.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and particularly the review of whether the BBC is being fair to taxpayers. I have to say, constituents in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea do not consider that they get value for money from the licence fee, and nor do they think that £3.8 billion is a good amount for the licence fee. Many have written to me to express profound concerns about the BBC’s coverage of the horrendous conflict between Israel and Hamas. This was about not just the BBC’s failure to talk about Hamas as an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation, but their genuine belief that BBC bias is stoking anti-Israel sentiment in our country, which, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, is very concerning. So will the review cover three points, as well as all the others: first, the impartiality of content; secondly, whether the licence fee should be mandatory any longer; and thirdly, the need to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee?
Lucy Frazer
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the language that the BBC has chosen to use in relation to Hamas. I have made clear my views—they are public on this issue—and I have stated on the record and raised with the BBC privately that Hamas is a terrorist organisation both legally and factually, and that it is important to call them what they are. As for her constituents’ concerns, all of us, of course, get comments from our constituents, and that is an excellent avenue for people to pursue. However, I remind her constituents and others that there are also formal channels through which they can make their views known, if they feel strongly that they should pursue those matters. We are looking at impartiality in the mid-term review, which we will publish shortly. Like her, I am also concerned about the prosecution of people and I have said that I will look at that in the charter review.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the funding model review. It is the responsible thing to do given the changing media landscape that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned. However, my constituents will raise an eyebrow at the BBC’s prices going up this year to deliver less, with the BBC having closed the Oxford newsroom and made severe cuts to Three Counties Radio. Will she lock into the review a mechanism so that if the licence fee is to remain compulsory for those wishing to have a television, there has to be a consumer test to properly monitor what viewers actually want to watch and listen to?
Lucy Frazer
As always, my hon. Friend makes some interesting points. As we look at the licence fee review and the funding review, it is really important that we consider all aspects very carefully. The BBC is there to provide a great service to the public, and that is what the public expect.
Bill Presented
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary James Cleverly, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Oliver Dowden and Michael Tomlinson, presented a Bill to make provision about the removal of certain migrants to the Republic of Rwanda.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 11 December, and to be printed (Bill 38) with explanatory notes (Bill 38-EN).
Backbench Business
Tackling Islamophobia
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling Islamophobia.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this general debate on tackling Islamophobia. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, and particularly its co-chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), for their continued work to push this debate and for their ongoing efforts to tackle Islamophobia. It must be noted, however, that Members of this House have, over several years, repeatedly requested that Government time be granted to debate such a pertinent issue, but those calls have fallen on deaf ears. The Minister will no doubt tell us that the Government take this issue seriously. Oh, the gaslighting.
I assure all those listening to this debate, who might not really understand the issue, that when Muslim communities speak up on the issue of Islamophobia, we are not looking for preferential treatment. In fact, quite the opposite. We are asking for equal treatment, free of discrimination, injustice and hatred.
In the US, the Biden Administration have formed an inter-agency working group to counter rising levels of Islamophobia. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has appointed the first ever special representative on combating Islamophobia to advise the federal Government. The United Nations designated 15 March as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, following the General Assembly’s acceptance of a resolution proposed by the 60 Muslim member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. And yet, despite all this—despite the US, Canada, the UN, 60 Muslim nations around the world and almost every mainstream Muslim organisation in the UK, and Muslims more generally, defining the experience as Islamophobic—our Government refuse even to call it Islamophobia. Internationally, Governments are standing up to this dangerous, insidious threat to our communities but, here in the UK, this Government are shamefully still playing with semantics.
According to the latest statistics, there has been a 600% rise in Islamophobic incidents here in the UK, including both verbal and physical abuse as well as vandalism, such as the dumping of a pig’s head at a proposed mosque in the market town of Barnoldswick. That is not all that is happening when it comes to Islamophobia. The recorded incidents are just a snapshot of a picture that is much uglier than any stats can paint. Make no mistake, Islamophobia is an entire industry.
The reality is that Islamophobia has become an acceptable prejudice. In fact, you can openly spout Islamophobia and nobody, neither politicians nor journalists, will even bat an eyelid. Sadly, almost no one will speak up or challenge it. In fact, you can be a former adviser to a Prime Minister and the current Conservative parliamentary candidate for West Suffolk and advocate for special laws just to deal with Muslims, including: creating a register of imams and mosques; closing down mosques, Muslim charities and Muslim TV stations; and banning the burqa and the hijab in schools. You can call for a whole legal structure to deal with those Muslims, as if they are a specific problem. And guess what? You can continue to be a Conservative party member and prospective parliamentary candidate without any consequences.
You can suggest that Muslim culture is inherently in
“the grip of a death cult that sacralises bloodshed”
and a week later, without any apology, be invited on to platforms such as “Question Time” as a key guest. You can also say that Muslims “are not like us” and are a “nation within a nation”, sowing the seeds of division and hate without ever retracting those statements, never mind apologising for the hurt they have caused to communities. And guess what? You can get a regular slot as a presenter on a mainstream news channel.
You can even be an open Islamophobe like Douglas Murray, who calls for conditions for Muslims in Europe to be made harder across the board, and be platformed by The Daily Telegraph and The Jewish Chronicle, and—wait for this one—even be defended at the Dispatch Box by the then Home Secretary.
On the one hand, under the banner of free speech, you can say pretty much anything about Muslims and Islam and still occupy a mainstream space. On the other hand, when thousands of people use their democratic right to protest and raise their voice to call for a cease- fire in Gaza and to support the Palestinian cause, they are labelled as “hate marchers” and “terrorist sympathisers.” Even the Prime Minister joined the former Home Secretary in aiding that dog-whistle politics.
This is no surprise to British Muslims, because we all know that this Government have made Islamophobia the central piece in their manufactured culture war to deflect from their incompetence and their failure to govern this nation. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Only in the last hour we have heard the shocking revelation from the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a former Minister and a former vice-chair of the Conservative party, that the PM has “written off” engagement with Muslim communities and does not take Islamophobia as seriously as other forms of racism. He has gone further by saying that the Prime Minister is paying “lip service” to tackling hatred against Muslims.
Despite everything that British Muslims are facing, I cannot remember the last time a Prime Minister or a Home Secretary visited a mosque to show a gesture of support to British Muslim communities. The failure to support British Muslim communities at a time when they are worried about attacks, and at a time when the Government’s own hate crime reporting centre has seen a 600% rise in attacks, shows that the problem goes right to the heart of Government. Not only Labour MPs are saying that; Conservative MPs are concerned, too. The hypocrisy and the disparity in behaviour from the Government stinks.
British Muslim communities want a level playing field so that they are equally part of modern Britain, of building our economy, building our NHS, building our businesses and entrepreneurship, and building Britain to be the best nation in the world. British Muslims know and understand that if Britain succeeds, they and their families succeed. I want people across society to understand that when all communities, including British Muslims, succeed, Britain succeeds—we all succeed.
The success we should have is hindered by the racism faced by Muslim communities across Britain today. Nobody is asking for exceptional treatment. They are simply asking for parity. If the Government can allow other communities to define the prejudice and hatred that impact them, why can they not allow British Muslim communities to define Islamophobia? If the Government can engage with mainstream organisations from other communities, why do they pursue a policy of non-engagement with mainstream Muslim organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain?
If, at a time when antisemitism is on a sharp rise, the Chancellor can rightfully announce an extra £7 million of funding in the autumn statement to tackle it, why, at a time when Islamophobia is also rising, did he refuse to announce a single penny of extra support for British Muslim communities in the same statement? If the Government can have a working independent adviser on antisemitism, why, three and a half years after the announcement of an independent adviser on Islamophobia, have they been unable to appoint one or to take the role forward? I hope the Minister is making notes, because I expect a response to every single one of these disparities.
Where I come from, you cannot be a bit pregnant—you are either pregnant or you are not. You are either on the side of equality or you are not. In the same vein, you either stand up for human rights or you do not. The problem for this Government is that they choose when they want to be pregnant. They never actually see the pregnancy through to full term, which is why they have never given birth to a serious policy, let alone nurtured a policy to drive a change that helps Britain to reach its full potential as a country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will allow me to indulge my curiosity, I am eager to know, four years after announcing an adviser, announcing a working definition of Islamophobia and announcing that they take anti-Muslim hatred so seriously, what progress the Government have actually made in responding to the urgency they insisted upon. Moreover, what does the Minister understand Islamophobia to be? I would be happy to give way to her if she would like to explain—that deafening silence allows Islamophobia, in all its pernicious forms, to thrive.
According to Home Office statistics, hate crimes targeting Muslims rose by 25% last year, making Muslims the most targeted religious group. Almost half of religiously motivated attacks were against Muslims, a trend that has stayed consistent for the last six years. Every year these statistics are released, and every year there is zero action taken by the Government. What is worse is refusing to call out Islamophobia. Sticking to the term “anti-Muslim hatred” recognises the consequences once an attack, assault or physical or verbal abuse has taken place, but it denies Islamophobia, so nothing is ever done to treat the cause. Instead, we respond only to the symptoms. This means that we recognise the murder of 81-year-old Mushin Ahmed from Rotherham, but we do nothing to challenge the radicalisation that influenced his killers, who called him a “groomer”, stamped on his head and beat that innocent grandfather to death as he returned from his early-morning prayers. It means that, on the one hand, we call out his murder and that, on the other hand, we allow mainstream voices, including those of many in this House and some who were previously in government, to perpetuate far-right conspiracies about Muslim grooming gangs, contradicting evidence from the Home Office’s own inquiry.
People do not just wake up and decide to commit acts of terror against Muslims. They do not just attack a mosque one day to commit criminal damage. They do not just randomly pull someone’s hijab or whack a hijab-wearing Muslim woman over the head because they are violent people. They do these things because they are radicalised by Islamophobic conspiracies that go unchallenged.
In the same manner, this issue is not just about hate; it is about the prejudice and racism faced by British Muslims. A newspaper investigation has shown that if someone simply changes their name to Mohammed from John Smith, while keeping all the other details the same, their car insurance could cost them another £1,000. Other research has shown that CVs with Muslim-sounding names are three times less likely to result in an interview.
We see the same disparities across the board in healthcare, business and society. These acts of prejudice and clearcut racism are not necessarily acts of hate, but the unwillingness to accept Islamophobia and the willingness to accept only anti-Muslim hate mean that no one is able to understand those disparities or to challenge that injustice. How can we define something we do not even understand?
That is why members of the Muslim community are not surprised by the alarming rise of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crimes. They see the everyday micro-aggressions throughout society. They see how people can say things on the media about Muslims, and how they can fuel hatred against them in a way that no one would accept with any other community, but still maintain the cloak of respectability in mainstream spaces.
Many people now fear for their children’s future in Britain, and those who can afford to do so are leaving. Some of the brightest, most intelligent minds, including our best doctors, engineers, bankers and traders, who can help to rebuild Britain, transform our economy and support our NHS, and who love Britain and are British, are looking to resettle due to fears of what will happen as things get worse.
That is why I say to the Government that Muslim communities are not asking for special treatment. They simply see the Government’s own recorded statistics on attacks against Muslims rising each year. They see their Government’s inaction and unwillingness to take control. They see, on the one hand, how things are becoming worse and, on the other hand, how they are being patronised and gaslit by a Government who will not even call Islamophobia what it is.
The Government’s inaction has directly or indirectly allowed Islamophobia to become institutionalised, embedded and even normalised across society. In China, there are Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps being forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, while Muslim women are being forced to marry non-Muslim men. In Myanmar, we have seen the genocidal campaign to wipe out Rohingya Muslim communities, with more than 25,000 killed and almost 1 million refugees fleeing to Cox’s Bazar. In Modi’s India, with extremist groups such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, we see an environment ripe for pogroms against Muslims. At this moment, we are witnessing collective punishment being endured by the people of Gaza. With the horrors of Srebrenica in living memory, the road map of inaction and growing far-right narratives, it is all too clear to Muslim communities where we could be heading.
My warning to the Government is that, if we do not act now, Muslims in this country might also face a Christchurch-style terrorist attack. The recent election of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands should worry us. Fringe, extreme views enter the mainstream when they are left unchecked. We can tackle this rising tide of hate only when good people speak up, when we become upstanders and not bystanders, and when we agree and openly believe that Muslims also matter.
If Governments such as mine can call out the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China and can implement sanctions, how can they be so silent or offer only empty words when international law is brazenly and openly ignored by an ally nation? True justice takes brave conversations, because it means speaking truth to power, whether it is to a friend or anybody else.
For that reason, I recently accompanied my local dean, Andy Bowerman from Bradford cathedral, on a visit to Jaranwala in Pakistan with Islamic Relief—a Muslim charity for which I am an ambassador. I met Christian communities and provided them with aid and support following the religious persecution they have faced. As a Muslim of Pakistan/Kashmiri heritage, I felt it was my duty to support these minority communities facing persecution. Among the many stories I heard, the one that struck me the most was about how their Muslim neighbours stood between them and their attackers as their lives were put in danger—an act of bravery, courage and solidarity. I mention that because people do not expect everyone to fix their problems, but one thing that does give them hope in the darkest of days is the real sense of solidarity they receive from others who stand with them. Let us stand together and challenge all injustice equally.
My ask to the Minister is simple: will she today announce any new solutions and policies that the Government will act on to help tackle Islamophobia? The debate on the APPG definition of Islamophobia is over. Islamophobia has been defined. That boat sailed five years ago. When will the Minister and the Government adopt the definition?
Three and a half years ago, at the same time as they announced an adviser on antisemitism, the Government announced an adviser on Islamophobia. Three and a half years later, there is rightly still an adviser on anti- semitism, so why are the Government not taking seriously, and recruiting somebody for, the role of Islamophobia adviser? Given the rising levels of Islamophobia across society—this is much like what we saw with the announcements in the autumn statement—what new funding will the Minister announce to enable us to tackle deep-rooted Islamophobia?
There are good colleagues here on both sides of the Chamber, and from all parties, calling out Islamophobia and the Government’s failures. If the Minister does not provide answers and solutions today but prefers to use her time at the Dispatch Box to further gaslight British Muslim communities, that will once again signal to them that the Government will do nothing to challenge the Islamophobia they face and will signal to wider society that there is a hierarchy in racism. Although inaction may mean nothing to the Government, the danger of not acting would, sadly, be felt by British Muslims. Taking no decision is also a decision.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Before I start my remarks, I direct Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial interests. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), who was supposed to co-sponsor the debate. We work closely together on this issue, and I pay tribute to her and her constituents. She has a large and vibrant Muslim community—a community she cares deeply about. As in many constituencies up and down the country, communities in Hyndburn are particularly concerned about the impact of the conflict in Gaza, which has seen a rise in Islamophobia, but which is, above all, taking an awful toll on innocent civilians. I know that my hon. Friend is making, and will continue to make, every effort to represent her constituents on that issue at this challenging time.
Last month was Islamophobia Awareness Month. I spoke to an audience at an event organised in my constituency by the Joint Mosques Council, and I pay tribute to Abdul Choudhuri, its chair, for putting on that event. I also pay tribute to the Muslim Council of Peterborough, which is chaired by Mohammad Ayub Choudry. At that event, I told a story, which I will tell again. In the summer of 2019, in the run-up to the by-election, where I came a stunning third, I was knocking on doors and I knocked on the door of a gentleman called Amir Suleman. He said to me, “Paul, I want to know your view on the all-party parliamentary group definition of Islamophobia.” I looked at him rather blankly; I did not know what to say—I did not have much to say at all. I vaguely knew that the issue was being discussed, but I had no in-depth knowledge about it, and I felt ashamed. I was seeking to represent thousands and thousands of Muslim constituents, and I knew nothing about the APPG definition that he had contributed to and that mattered so much to many members of the community and to the constituents I sought to represent.
What did I do about it? I promised Amir there and then that I would further my knowledge and become involved in the APPG, should I win the election. Following two or three rather embarrassing interviews on Salaam Radio, and having become the Member of Parliament for Peterborough, I am proud to stand with the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. Amir Suleman challenged me, and he was right to do so. He is my friend, and I am proud to represent him.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), the APPG definition is solid and sound, and the Government should adopt it. They did decide to produce their own working definition, but they are still without an adviser to replace the one who, sadly, was removed from that position, and they seem to have got themselves into a difficult situation. They do not seem to know what to do about this, and I hope the Minister will tell me what she is going to do about it, but let me suggest a solution: they should adopt the APPG definition, which they could have done many years ago. We do not have to go through this any more. The APPG definition has been adopted by many different people and organisations, and if the Government adopted it, their problems would be solved instantly.
However, I do not want to talk only about negative aspects of the Muslim community. I want to talk about some positive aspects, because Peterborough would not be Peterborough without that community. I am proud of some of the APPG’s reports since I have been involved in it, because they show not just the challenges faced by Muslims but the contribution that their communities make to this country. I am proud of the fact that Muslims contribute £31 billion to the UK economy, and anyone who visits Peterborough will find the signs of that are not hard to see. Some of the wealthiest people in Peterborough are Muslims. They are entrepreneurs, they set up businesses, and they have done fantastically well in contributing to Peterborough’s economy. When it comes to charitable giving and going the extra mile, the Muslim community do that in spades. I do not know for certain, but I would bet a dinner at one of the top restaurants in Peterborough that the time when the largest amount is raised for charity in my city is Ramadan. Millions of pounds are raised and go to good causes. That is just one example of the contribution that Muslims make, not just in Peterborough but throughout the country. One of the APPG’s reports, “Faith as the Fourth Emergency Service”, draws attention to that charitable contribution to good causes in the UK.
The contribution of this community has never been seen more clearly than during the covid pandemic. We have many different communities in Peterborough, and many different faiths. We believe different things, we speak different languages, and we come from different parts of the world. However, when it came to supporting one another and supporting the vulnerable, we in Peterborough came together as one city. That showed what a contribution Muslim communities, and others, can make when the country is facing an emergency.
Many Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford West today, have talked about the challenges that Muslims have faced—insidious and often silent forms of Islamophobia involving, for instance, car insurance and being asked to pay more for services. I see this all the time in Peterborough. A friend of mine, a Muslim Conservative councillor, often changes his name to an English-sounding one when trying to buy a house in order to get a foot in the door, but when he goes to view the house, he is told, “Actually, it has already been sold.” That has happened to him on a number of occasions, and it is an example of everyday Islamophobia. We cannot turn a blind eye to it; we must call it out when we see it, and we see it all too often.
In preparation for the debate, I asked my constituents—through my Facebook page, whose followers are 11,000-strong—to tell me about their experiences of Islamophobia. Let me read out a few of their responses. The first is from Kaoru Miyake, who wrote:
“Islamophobia comes from ignorance, stereo type and fear of unknown. Ordinary Muslims have no connection to Hamas, ISIS or other terrorist groups.”
All too often, she suggested, it was assumed that they did have such a connection, and I fear that she is right. Suzette Weston, who, obviously, is not a Muslim, wrote:
“It is easier for ignorant people to call all Muslims terrorists than to take the time to understand a vast majority are just loving family people.”
I entirely agree with her. Ahmed, another constituent, wrote:
“There must be a strong campaign to unite and educate the public on the issues of islamophobia and anti-Semitism, and how the conflicts we are seeing today”
arise from ignorance. I could not have put it better myself. These are ordinary people, and I often find that if I ask ordinary people in my constituency for their views, they respond in their droves with common-sense observations.
Let me, for a moment, talk in my capacity as a Conservative MP. When I campaign in my constituency—when I knock on doors and speak to constituents— I find that the values of Muslims are values that I share, as a Conservative. They are entrepreneurs; they believe in low tax, in family values and in strong communities. If we were able to talk about international issues in an empathetic and understanding way, if we were able to understand what the death or persecution of a Muslim means, anywhere in the world—whether it happens next door, or in Kashmir, Gaza or Myanmar—we could lead the Muslim community in this country. If we could do that, my party would probably receive many more votes from a community that has sometimes been seen, shamelessly, as a vote bank for the Labour party. If we were able to get our language right, we would reap the rewards.
Having talked about international situations, I now want to talk briefly about the ongoing conflict in Gaza. We have seen an increase in antisemitism, obviously, but also an increase in Islamophobia as a result of that conflict. The revulsion that ordinary Muslims in places such as Peterborough feel about the deaths of innocent people in Gaza, and about the people who are suffering collective punishment for the crimes of Hamas— people who have done nothing wrong, but are seeing their homes being destroyed and bombs landing on their homes and in their communities—cannot be overstated. Thousands, undoubtedly, have died, and many buildings have been destroyed. I struggle to understand how any of this makes Israel any safer.
We need a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. I wrote to the Prime Minister about this some time ago, and my feelings are exactly the same now. We gave peace a chance when we had a temporary truce. More than 80 hostages were released, and the bombings stopped. We need to give peace a chance permanently.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group for British Muslims for reminding me before the debate that mine is the constituency with the 77th largest number of Muslims. They constitute about 13.5% of the population there—about 16,000 people. To put that in context, the Muslim population in my constituency is itself hugely diverse and has communities from Africa, Asia, the middle east and indeed from Europe. That is within a constituency where almost half the total population was born outside the UK. It is a very liberal and very tolerant constituency, and I have always been extremely proud to represent it and to live there in the heart of the community.
Unfortunately, however, even in normal times there are significant numbers of hate crimes. I am shocked that, nationally, 44% of all hate crimes are committed against Muslims. I am shocked that 42% of mosques have experienced some form of attack over the last three years. We have had incidents where women going about their ordinary business have had their headscarves pulled off and been abused. There is a great deal of what one might call casual—though by no means trivial—racism where, in the context of the neighbourly disputes that we all deal with as MPs, people’s religion is brought up, often from a position of entire ignorance. I am struck by the fact that quite a lot of non-Muslims are also subject to Islamophobic abuse, presumably on the grounds of their ethnicity.
Complacency is the enemy here; we need to educate people as much as we can, but we also need to punish people, and I am sure that all hon. Members present are working with their local police on tackling Islamophobia and hate crime. It is also the case that Muslim communities, who often are disproportionately in poor housing, suffering from poverty and other forms of injustice and living in overcrowded and damp conditions, are neglected and do not get their fair share of resources.
One particular type of discrimination is the lack of prayer space and community space. For many Muslim communities, the mosque is not just a place of prayer and worship, but an educational, social and cultural hub. Particularly in areas such as London, where land and property are hugely expensive, that is made very difficult. We live in straitened times but, through the lottery and other money, there is potential to provide that. However, increasingly I see Muslim communities not having the resources that they should have and being discriminated against in that way.
If that is the position in normal times, unfortunately the times we live in are worse than that because of the international situation. I will not go into detail, because the matter will be subject to the courts in due course, but an individual was arrested about 10 days ago for a series of attacks, over a period of a month or so, on mosques and Muslim-owned businesses in west London. I have visited the major local mosques in my constituency, in White City and Shepherd’s Bush, and I am pleased to say that they have not been victims, but Acton mosque and other mosques in the area have suffered repeated and regular attacks to their premises.
In addition—this is of particular concern to me—the Palestinian mission was attacked on a number of occasions. Death threats were issued and there were attacks on property owned by the mission staff. I am very proud to have the Palestinian mission in Hammersmith, but there is an irony here that, because of the failure to recognise Palestine as a state, the mission lacks diplomatic status. Everybody refers to Dr Husam Zomlot, whom many of us know as the fantastic representative of Palestine in the UK, as “the ambassador”, and to the mission as “the embassy”, but it has been brought home to me very significantly that that is not the case.
I have written several times to the commander responsible for diplomatic protection, asking that diplomatic protection be granted to the mission, particularly at this difficult time and particularly when it has suffered a series—not one, but a series—of criminal damage attacks. I have not had a response to those letters. I know that my right hon. Friends the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary have also written to their counterparts raising those concerns, so they have been raised at the most senior level. It is frankly outrageous, when tensions are running so high and when any embassy of any other country would receive full diplomatic protection, that that is not being granted. The Palestinian mission represents all Palestinians irrespective of religion, but there is undoubtedly an Islamophobic element in the flavour of the attacks that have taken place.
I have said that the enemy here is complacency. We must take Islamophobia seriously. We must at all times be aware that its impact on our community is significant in people’s everyday lives. That is equally true of anti- semitism and other forms of hatred based on race, religion and other protected characteristics; it is an insidious and a growing part of our society, but it is disproportionately affecting Muslim communities. Even in the most liberal and tolerant parts of our community, that is a feature that we must resist. I hope that the Minister responds to this debate not just with warm words but with action, funding and a real determination to take Islamophobia seriously, because it is a constant and ever-present threat within many of our communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am not going to put a time limit on speeches, but, looking at the clock and given that 10 colleagues wish to speak in addition to the Front Benchers, I think it would be helpful and a courtesy to others if speeches were confined to around eight minutes, bearing in mind that there is another debate to follow this one.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I speak in this debate from a number of different perspectives, but before I commence I want to pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place.
From 2019 to 2020, I was the United Kingdom Prime Minister’s special envoy for international freedom of religion or belief for all. I advocated and engaged with people from all across Parliament in an inclusive manner to ensure that the UK stood by and stood up for international freedom of religion or belief for all. That meant taking forward the Bishop of Truro’s report as a top priority for the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister at that time.
That report meant the UK ensuring that we stood up for international freedom of religion and belief for all faiths. During my time in office, working with the United States, we set up a 27-member international alliance of states working together to advance international freedom of religion or belief for all. We then signed off on the UK hosting an international summit on international freedom of religion or belief. During covid-19, we saw the real challenge of people around the world being targeted for their faith or belief. There was a real increase in antisemitism, in Islamophobia and in anti-Christian hatred, and we saw that across the board. I referred to that in the Westminster Hall debate when I stepped down from that role in 2020.
Having advocated, as a former UK special envoy, for international freedom of religion or belief all around the world being a top priority of the United Kingdom Government, for other countries around the world doing the right thing and for ensuring that people are treated fairly and equally, I then have to ask myself what the situation is in the UK regarding intolerance and hatred towards faith communities across the board. This debate is about Islamophobia, which some term anti-Muslim hatred.
Tell MAMA, an organisation funded by the Government, says that its latest figures demonstrate a sevenfold increase in incidents of anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia. According to independent Home Office figures on the faith communities that receive the largest amount of hate, in 2022-23, 44% of incidents were against the Muslim community, and 19% were against the Jewish community. In 2020-21, 45% of incidents were against the Muslim community, and 22% were against the Jewish community. In 2019-20, 50% of incidents of faith-based hate and intolerance were against the Muslim community, and 19% were against the Jewish community. Year after year, those two faith communities have experienced the largest amount of hate and intolerance. That is unacceptable. According to the Community Security Trust, intolerance, hatred and antisemitism against the Jewish community is exceptionally high. That is unacceptable.
Policymakers and Governments must act to challenge intolerance and hate against all faith communities in a fair and inclusive manner. That is why, at Prime Minister’s questions last week, I asked the Prime Minister about the unacceptable rise in intolerance and hate against two faith communities. In the autumn statement, the Government announced £7 million in funding to tackle antisemitism, and they were absolutely right to do that. They also provided £3 million in October after the horrific, barbaric terrorist act in Israel, carried out by the terrorist organisation Hamas. The impact of that on antisemitism in the UK was shocking, and the Government’s response was right and proper. I hope the Minister can answer my question, because the Prime Minister has not, nor has he spoken to me since I raised it with him: why was there no funding to tackle anti-Muslim hatred in the autumn statement?
I spoke to the Prime Minister in his office during the leadership contest about engaging with the Muslim community in an inclusive manner across the board, knowing the different challenges. He said that he was committed to that, and that we would work together on it. I am waiting to see the Prime Minister to this day. I have been a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister, an envoy and an MP; when I give my word, I honour it. If someone cannot honour their word, they should not give it, in any area of life.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) raised an interesting point about the question I asked the Prime Minister: why do the Government not have an independent adviser on Islamophobia? Why has that role been left vacant for more than a year? A 2019 Guardian article that I have here reports that, in one of her last acts as Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) appointed John Mann to the Government post of independent adviser on antisemitism. As a former British envoy for religious freedom, I worked with him in the other place. He does a terrific job. My right hon. Friend also appointed Qari Asim as the independent adviser on Islamophobia. He was in office for one year. He told me that he was never given any terms of reference by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. He was removed from office in 2022, and there has been no action to appoint another independent adviser.
I pay tribute to our former adviser on Islamophobia. I have here a document that reads:
“Faith leaders write a prayer for Holocaust Memorial Day 2020”.
The faith leaders were His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and Imam Qari Asim. He was good enough to write that prayer and to work with faith leaders, and we must acknowledge his work. There may have been a difference in policy with the Government, but an independent adviser should advise independently.
Naz Shah
The hon. Member is making an interesting point. Does he accept that the yardstick applied to things that Muslims say is different? Islamophobia has become an acceptable, respectable form of racism across society, and it has been emboldened by people who do not challenge it. Is it not true that Qari Asim was measured with a different yardstick?
Rehman Chishti
Qari Asim worked with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and all faith leaders, and he did a terrific job in that regard. When we are dealing with independent advisers, we must respect their advice. They look at things from a faith perspective and they may sometimes express disagreement, but that is the role of an independent adviser.
When the Government want to remove someone from office, there is something called courtesy and decency. I have here the letter sacking Qari Asim, and it is not even signed by a Minister. It just says, “You’re no longer required, because your views are not compliant with freedom of expression.” I thought the whole thing about freedom of expression and respect was difference of opinion; freedom of expression means that people can engage in peaceful protest when they do not agree with a certain course of action. The Government need to look at that carefully.
I ask the Minister to answer the question that the Prime Minister did not: why have the Government not appointed an independent adviser on Islamophobia? Will they appoint one so that we have parity with the independent adviser on antisemitism? When will that decision be made?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on this important subject. He spoke about Qari Asim, an excellent imam, whom I know. Should our conclusion not be that the Government never had any intention of doing anything with him?
Rehman Chishti
I have been a Member of Parliament for 13 years, and I resigned from Government when Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, was not given sanctuary in the UK as she should have been. Our Government did not offer it. I was the British trade envoy to Pakistan and I advocated for justice for her there, which she got, but she needed a country to step up and take her in. Canada did; we did not, and I resigned from the Government because we did not do the right thing. I come from a Muslim background; my father and grandfather were imams. It was the right thing to do to stand up for someone being persecuted.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) asked whether the Government really intended for Qari Asim to do some work. For 13 years I have tried to engage with the Government, and with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who make the decisions. The Prime Minister says that it is about action, not words. He needs to explain why action has not been taken; otherwise, people may infer, as the hon. Member said, that the Prime Minister is not genuinely engaged on this matter, nor does he want to engage, because what he says is not followed by substance. If the Government were committed to engaging with the independent adviser Qari Asim, why did they not give him terms of reference for two years? I pay tribute to his work and to that of John Mann in the other place, who does a terrific job on antisemitism.
Ours is a great country because we have people from all faiths and backgrounds coming together to make it so, and contributing at every level. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) does a fantastic job championing his constituents and engaging with the Muslim community. He highlighted their economic contribution of more than £31 billion to our way of life—is that right?
Rehman Chishti
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point. We have people like Mo Ali in cricket; across the board, in enterprise and sport, Muslims contribute at every level. Our population in the UK is around 4 million, or 6% of the total population. Having a strong, cohesive society is not just morally right; it is in our national security interests. When we have a Government favouring one faith community and not another, it leads to divisions and divisiveness, which we do not want.
The Minister may want to look at the Prime Minister’s Twitter page, which lists an Eid event on 3 May and an engagement on Eid Mubarak with the Muslim community. There is nothing else on the Prime Minister’s page about tackling anti-Muslim hatred, but there are 21 mentions of tackling antisemitism, even though antisemitism and Islamophobia are both unacceptable. If someone looks at the Government’s action from the outside, they will see that there is no independent adviser for anti-Muslim hatred and no comparable funding to tackle it, which creates negative perceptions of the Prime Minister and his Ministers.
In the autumn statement, the Treasury gave £7 million to deal with antisemitism. Did the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ask for money from the Treasury to deal with anti-Muslim hatred? If the Department did not ask for money, I do not think we cannot blame the Chancellor, so the Department has to answer the question.
I have another question for the Minister, and I hope the Prime Minister will read it in Hansard. The Prime Minister says that the Government have given Tell MAMA £6 million since its inception in 2012 to deal with anti-Muslim hatred. We have seen the stats that show that such incidents are increasing and increasing. The Minister may say that the Government’s funding is for protected places of worship—I think that was the answer given by the Treasury. In the Home Office statistics, there is a category for protected places of worship, which covers mosques, temples, gurdwaras and others across the board, but there is no data on how much money has been given. The Government say, “Up to x amount is available.” Okay, but how much of it has actually been given?
I will end with this. As a former Foreign Office Minister, I can tell the House that people across the world look around and say, “The UK advocates for international freedom of religion or belief for all”—we got a lot done during my time in office, working with the US on getting members of the Baha’i community released from the Houthis in Yemen, and helping people in Uzbekistan who had been persecuted for their faith—“but how do you address anti-Muslim hatred in the UK, with the resources and structures that you use to deal with other forms of hatred?” I think the Government will find it a real challenge to answer that. We see the foreign policy issues in places such as the middle east. People say, “Your perspective on how international law is applied in the middle east may explain how you are dealing with the situation back home with regard to faith communities and anti-Muslim hatred.” When we ask people to apply international law in Ukraine, they will probably ask us to apply international law when it comes to the middle east.
That is why we have the whole dilemma in UK foreign policy about getting more people from the non-aligned states to join us. They want a consistent approach across the board internationally. Back home in the UK, we need to make sure that we treat all faith communities fairly and equally, with the same resources and structures. At the moment, I am not seeing that in engagement with the Muslim community.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Let me try again. If every colleague takes 15 minutes, the following debate will have to be cancelled. I urge a self- denying ordinance.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
As I have raised in this House multiple times, I have received Islamophobic abuse since being elected. For example, just this week I posted on social media a video of my comments about migrant survivors of domestic abuse during the debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I will not read the worst responses I received, which contain swearing, but here are some of the others:
“You was given a job in England UK to help England, all you care about is your own, feel free to leave at any point. What about all the immigrants raping our children you deluded fool.”
“Ban all Muslim MPs. They represent Muslims not the native. Their Loyalty is to their own.”
“This is not Islamabad!”
“Deport.”
“You are a traitor and will be prosecuted in 2028.”
“If England doesn’t kick you and every other ungrateful foreign beggar out very soon there will be no England anymore.”
“You’ll be much happier in a Muslim country Begum.”
“People like you should be expelled from parliament. The only people you represent are foreign nationals.”
“That’s the problem with Islam. Women are treated as second class by the men. You need to recognise the truth about this primitive religion.”
“Muslims don’t have beautiful clothes, only ugly headscarves! There is no invention, only destruction!”
I want to make it clear to the House that those are just examples of the regular, almost daily abuse that I have had to learn to cope with, and they are from just my most recent social media post. I also receive threats online, via voicemail and email, and by letter. The situation is escalating, exacerbated by those trying to capitalise on current events by spreading their hate and division, and I now face a heightened and very serious risk to my safety.
It is important to recognise that what I am experiencing as the first hijab-wearing MP reflects a growing current within society. The data shows that Muslims are the largest target of religiously motivated hate crimes. Following the 7 October Hamas attacks, which resulted in around 1,200 Israeli deaths, including those of civilians and children, and the subsequent Israeli military assault, which has killed more than 20,000 Palestinians, including civilians and children, hate crime against both Jews and Muslims has risen dramatically in Europe. In the UK, Tell MAMA has reported a 600% increase in attacks on Muslims, including attacks and hostility against individuals and mosques, with children targeted at school, death threats and physical attacks.
Islamophobic hate crimes not only affect the victim but send reverberations through communities, as they reinforce established patterns of bias, prejudice and discrimination. Islam and Muslims have increasingly been seen as culturally dangerous and threatening to the British way of life. We are constantly scapegoated and misrepresented, and labelled both deviant and evil. Being called a supporter of terrorism or a terrorist, or being held responsible as a group for terrorism, is a common theme. The reality is that Islamophobia is widespread and relates to whole structures of discrimination. The socioeconomic discrimination and inequality that Muslims face makes us the most economically disadvantaged faith group in the UK.
At the same time, Muslims face institutional discrimination. For some time it has been widely understood, including by the United Nations, that approaches to counter-terrorism are modelled on Islamophobic stereotypes, policies and political structures, but Government documents leaked in November 2023 revealed that officials had drawn up controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism even further, to include organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain—yet this Government will not even recognise Islamophobia. When Muslims are the target of hate, the Government are silent. They allow social media to perpetuate narratives of terrorism about Muslims, while failing to call out those who misrepresent and generalise about Muslims. More than that, they recklessly stoke the hate by peddling their so-called culture wars against the British people, pandering to a culture that tells people it is acceptable to discriminate against, to persecute and to abuse Muslims.
Across Europe, the situation is alarming, with the threat of the far right on the rise, including the re-emergence of far-right parties and politicians such as Geert Wilders. Whether in India, France, China or Iran, I believe it should be up to women to choose what they wear. No state and no man should have the right to overrule that. This September marked a year since the murder of Mahsa Amini in Iran. When she was murdered, the Prime Minister was right to describe the Iranian regime’s attacks on women protesting for their right to not wear the hijab as abhorrent, but the Government are silent about the outlawing of Muslim women’s right to wear the abaya in France. And where is the Government’s outrage at the fact that government offices across Europe can now ban employees from wearing religious symbols such as headscarves in the interests of so-called neutrality, after a court was asked to rule on the case of a Muslim employee in Belgium who was told that she could not wear a headscarf at work? I am concerned and alarmed by that, because it could exacerbate the marginalisation of Muslims at a time when Islamophobia is already on the rise.
The constituency that I represent has a long and proud history of migration and anti-racism, whether that was our Jewish communities and allies opposing fascists at the battle of Cable Street in 1936 or our Bangladeshi communities leading the anti-fascist mobilisation in 1978 after the murder of Altab Ali. We are one of the most culturally diverse areas in the UK, and we are damned proud of it. We will always stand together, multiracial, of all faiths and none, against division and intolerance.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I welcome the debate on behalf of the 3 million Muslims in the United Kingdom and the significant number who are my constituents in Hendon. Since 7 October, there have been many incidents of racism following the terrorist attacks in Israel. Subsequently, the number of antisemitic incidents has risen to more than 1,009; the same would probably be true of attacks within the Muslim community.
I receive regular reports from the Metropolitan police about hate crimes taking place in the borough of Barnet, and I am extremely concerned to read that many are linked to the current conflict in Israel and Gaza. On Brent Street in Hendon, there is a fast food restaurant called Lahore, which a constituent told me had been vandalised; he attributed the attack to Islamophobia. I do not know whether that is true, but I do know that a Jewish restaurant in Golders Green was also attacked, and the police refused to categorise that incident as antisemitic. Regardless of who attacked either of them or why, the business owners were left with a financial bill as a result of those extremist actions.
I believe that Islamophobia exists in this country, as indeed does antisemitism, but I do not accept that it is accepted and embedded in the United Kingdom’s society. The debate has been posited as a conflict between one group of people in the United Kingdom and those who hold a different religion. That appears to frame the discussion as an otherness of those who are Islamic, but I do not see that, particularly not in my constituency. In fact, there are significant shared concerns between my different communities. For example, Muslims and Jews both share beliefs around halal and shechita, and issues with the coroner service—I have campaigned long and hard on seeking a death certificate within 24 hours. The promotion of faith schools is important to both communities, as are single-sex spaces in places such as hospitals.
People in the United Kingdom sometimes do denigrate Muslims because they perceive them as a homogenous entity, but that is far from the truth. It is interesting that no one has so far raised the great schism in Islam: that of the Sunni and Shi’a divide. Put simply, the contention centres on the succession of the Prophet Muhammad and whether his grandson or one of his followers should be considered to be next in the line of succession. That has been the cause of conflict for hundreds of years and is the basis of proxy conflicts happening right now in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and other parts of Africa. As a non-Muslim, it is not for me to say how the line of succession should occur or to dictate whether one strand of Islam is more legitimate than another, but it is incumbent on me to acknowledge the differences and, as a democratically elected representative, to give voice to the minority and defend their right to exist.
In recent years, the divide has been attributed as a justification for sectarian violence. In Iraq, Daesh committed atrocities against Yazidi men and women and used extremist ideology to justify their crimes by calling their victims devil worshippers. In Syria, the Druze community has faced persistent attacks, which has led to opposing clans coming together in a common cause against their Syrian attackers. The conflict in Syria has also fed into existential fears among Lebanon’s Druze community, in part due to attacks on the Syrian Jews and Alawites, who are denounced as non-Muslims and targeted for extreme violence.
We have heard today about Muslims suffering discrimination and violence in Bosnia, Myanmar and China. Those are all examples of Islamic atrocities overseas. However, the murder in 2016 of Asad Shah in Scotland exposed not just Islamophobia but a downright hatred of Ahmadi Muslims here in the United Kingdom. The murderer, a Sunni Muslim, had driven from Bradford with the intent of confronting Mr Shah because he was an open adherent of the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam, which believes that the Prophet Mohammed was not the final Muslim prophet. The judge said that Mr Shah was regarded by those who knew him as
“a peaceful and peace-loving…family man who went out of his way to show respect for those of any faith.”
She said that his murder was
“an appalling display of merciless violence”,
and told the murderer that he was responsible for the
“barbaric, premeditated and wholly unjustified killing of a much-loved man who was a pillar of the local community.”
As has been mentioned about other murders, Mr Shah, too, was repeatedly stabbed and had his face stamped on.
The Muslim Council of Britain put out a statement after the murder of Mr Shah, which stated that it affirmed
“the right of Ahmadis to their freedom of belief”
and rejected attacks upon them. But the MCB stated that its theological position is “fundamentally opposed” to the Ahmadi community, and that no Muslim
“should be forced to class Ahmadis as Muslims if they do not wish to do so”.
I thought that would be anathema to many hon. Members in the Chamber, and particularly those who advocate self-identification in other spheres of life. Is it not right for the individual to decide what religion they identify with, and for that person to be allowed a view, even if it is not shared by others? As is attributed to Voltaire,
“I may not agree with what you say, but I defend…your right to say it.”
Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
That is where I see a difference between British Muslims and those from around the world. The clue is in the name—British. Unlike in some cultures, the issue of British values supersedes other prejudices. Our shared belief in common values surrounding decency, fair play, respect for the law and free speech are also shared by British Muslims. When I visit faith schools in my constituency, such as Barnet Hill Academy in west Hendon, I see those values being instilled in the children alongside their Muslim faith. All of us must ensure that that continues.
The United Kingdom can lead by example. In July 2021, the UN expressed its deep concern about the lack of attention to the serious human rights violations perpetrated against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community around the world and called on the international community to step up efforts to bring an end to the ongoing persecution of Ahmadi Muslims. That has included discriminatory legislative and policy frameworks; the targeting of Ahmadi Muslims through exclusion, hate campaigns and violence, including arbitrary arrests and detentions, verbal and physical attacks in the public sphere, and attacks against their cultural sites and places of worship. Ahmadi women are particularly affected as they face harassment and discrimination due to their distinctive traditional attire, which makes them immediately recognisable, while Ahmadi children and youth are often denied admission to schools and higher educational institutions because of their faith. They also constantly suffer intimidation and bullying, forcing them to interrupt or drop out of their studies. Reports also indicate that Ahmadis are still portrayed in a negative light in school textbooks, while Ahmadiyya educational institutions are often seized and administratively closed by state authorities.
It is my belief that tackling Islamophobia is not restricted to non-Muslims and Muslims.
Naz Shah
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and associate myself with his comments about ensuring that we end all persecution of all Muslim communities, whether that be the Ahmadiyya community or the Shi’a community. For declaration purposes, my family and I come from the lineage of the Prophet, sallallahu alaihi wasallam—peace be upon him. Many in my family are of Shi’a heritage and belief, and many are Sunni. I am struggling to understand the idea here. We were talking about Islamophobia, but the debate has been taken elsewhere. I do not think that that was the intention of the hon. Member, who is making valid points about persecution, but does he not agree that the intersection of Muslim-upon-Muslim hatred is not Islamophobia in the context of what this afternoon’s debate is about? I encourage him to speak to people—perhaps we could have a chat; I would not mind a coffee —just to unpick some of that, because it does worry me.
Dr Offord
Perhaps we should have a kahwa instead of a coffee. The hon. Member hits on a really good point, but I see Islamophobia and antisemitism—I hope that I made this clear—as simply racism. There can still be inter-faith racism, where one sect says that another is not legitimate. That is still the denigration of a particular community. For me, that is still Islamophobia and racism, and it is unacceptable, but I am grateful to her for her comments, and for accepting the premise of my argument.
To conclude, if Islamophobia, racism or whatever we want to call it is to be addressed, all Muslims must be prepared to demonstrate a tolerance not only of other faiths but of their own. It is only then, through leading by example, that we can attack and address other causes of Islamophobia, which I have acknowledged exists, in this country as well as abroad, and take action against people who are denigrating others.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for proposing today’s important debate, and all my fellow members of the APPG on British Muslims for their work. I also thank somebody from the other place: Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the treasurer of the APPG, for her constant work, and for holding up a mirror to us all, but particularly to her own party, and for the courage and strength that she shows in doing that.
It is a privilege to listen to and take part in this emotive, powerful and timely debate. Islamophobia is a scourge on society. It is on all of us to tackle it, call it out, and educate. It is something close to my heart, and I declare my interest as the co-chair of the APPG on British Muslims. I firmly believe that it should not be left to British Muslims to tackle Islamophobia in this country. It is on all of us to build a fair, inclusive society, which we can all benefit from, and to highlight the huge contributions that Muslims make to our country.
I see those contributions in my constituency every single day, through inspirational charity work, public services and business. If anyone wants to see a great representation of how diversity is strength, I encourage people to look at the videos of Luton Town football club fans leaving Kenilworth Road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), on news of our promotion to the premier league after the team’s historic win, taking them to Wembley. They entered Bury Park to the sound of dhol drums, Irish bands and people of all faiths and none, and of all backgrounds and ages, celebrating together as one. Multiculturalism is alive and kicking in towns such as Luton. It is a strength to be the town of many voices that we are.
I have been fortunate to meet fantastic people from across the country living their faith through action, and I learn something new with every meeting. When I visited the British Muslim Heritage Centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), I learned that an invention by Muslims is the thing that gets me going and powered throughout the day: coffee, which is possibly the greatest invention, especially for any parent or shift worker. I would like to spend more time talking about the great work being done in Luton North by our Muslim community, whether it is through organisations such as Inspire Eid, Discover Islam, Curry Kitchen and Faiths United, or internationally through Islamic Relief and the Muslim Council of Britain. Unfortunately, hate crime is so rife that less time is now afforded to the wonderful contributions of Muslim communities in our country. Instead, we have to spend so much time talking about the horrific impacts of Islamophobia, as well as other forms of discrimination.
It comes as no surprise to anyone that racists do not stay in their lanes. Hatred rears its ugly head in the form of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-black hatred as well as anti-disabled discrimination. In many instances, a perpetrator will not just limit their hatred to one protected characteristic. Often the victim will be picked out for more than one issue, facing a barrage of hatred for multiple parts of who they are. That is especially true for Muslim women, black Muslims and disabled Muslims. We have heard horrific examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is a dear friend, just for doing her job.
According to statistics from the Home Office, hate crimes targeting Muslims rose by 25% last year, making Muslims the most targeted religious group. Almost half of religious hate crimes are directed towards Muslims, and with the atrocities taking place in the middle east we are seeing an even more horrific rise in Islamophobia. Tell MAMA reports an increase in recent incidents of Islamophobia in the UK of over 300%. That is concerning enough on its own, but it is only the tip of the iceberg, as the level of under-reporting and misreporting is likely to be considerable. That is why we desperately need the Government to adopt the cross-party definition of Islamophobia. That would be just a start in tackling the problem head on. How can the Government begin to tackle Islamophobia if they refuse to define what it is?
For years, we have heard that the Government would be looking into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) has pushed hard on it, as have others, yet we have heard nothing but silence—just more holding answers and delays as the incidence of Islamophobia continues to rise. That simply is not good enough, so will the Minister give assurances that an agreed definition of Islamophobia will be coming from the Government, and explain the real reason for the delays? I would also be grateful if she confirmed that the additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement rightly to tackle the rise in antisemitism, as the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised, will be matched, or at least that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will fight for that, to tackle Islamophobia at the same rate?
While we wait, more people will be subjected to abuse, intimidation and violence without a standard that institutions and individuals are held to, and are accountable for. More than 15,746 attacks have been committed against Muslims since 2017. How many more must happen? How much more misery must be inflicted before the Government act? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), an ardent campaigner against Islamophobia, has called for many times, when will the long-promised adviser on Islamophobia be announced and, importantly, worked with?
Let me turn to the intersectional aspects of Islamophobia, which is incredibly important, particularly for younger generations. We know the horrific impact and the rise in Islamophobic attacks following the description that the former Prime Minister and former Member for Uxbridge gave of veiled women as “letterboxes”. Research from Tell MAMA showed that Islamophobic incidents rose a shocking 375% the week after those comments from someone who clearly should have known better but sadly did not. Constituents in Luton North contacted me to share their anger and concern, which I shared, about the impact of the slurs against Pakistani men made by the former Home Secretary—or should I refer to her as another contender for the Tory leadership? Those slurs were founded not in evidence, but in fear- mongering and Islamophobia.
It is beholden on all of us in this place and in positions of power to lead by example, and to continue to learn, educate ourselves and challenge our own prejudices. Being anti-racist is something to consistently strive for. Many have a lot to learn still, especially when it comes to intersectionality and Islamophobia. Shockat Patel, a board member of Muslim Engagement and Development, reported:
“Lots of women say they are fearful of going out, just because of the fact they are wearing a headscarf. For those that wear a niqab they find it even more difficult because they know, almost certainly, that they are going to get verbal abuse.”
The visibility of Muslim women increases the chances of their being targeted for hatred. They experience the double whammy of misogyny and racism, often compounded when class is also factored in.
That discrimination creates barriers to talented, compassionate and experienced Muslim women in many walks of life, including in the workplace, accessing services —particularly important for Muslims with disabilities—representation in the media and, sadly, in politics, and in other forms of public life. We are all the worse off because we are missing out on the best and widest pool of talent. Representation matters, not just in politics but in every walk of life. The constant use of culture wars to stoke division and hatred by those in power, who should know better, is a dead end. It is detrimental to us all, especially those of us who want a fairer, safer and more inclusive society.
On the flipside, we can also see positive steps being taken internationally, leading to progress. This year, the United Nations held the first-ever International Day to Combat Islamophobia on 15 March 2023. That was after a resolution backed by 60 Muslim member states was passed by the UN General Assembly. The UN called on all UN member states to mark the day by recognising Islamophobia and working to combat it. Can the Minister tell us whether that was marked and recognised by the UK Government? If not, do they plan to do so next year?
The point I want to end on is that we can do better than this. If we are to build a safe, fair and inclusive country for all, we must do better, and that starts with the leadership of this country, and in particular the leadership of the Conservative Government, who have all too often been found wanting on the challenges of Islamophobia. Despite what some politicians and media outlets describe as “woke issues”, Islamophobia affects entire communities—our villages, towns and cities across the country and internationally. It is a poison that knows no boundaries.
We know that the world is an incredibly unstable and volatile place, especially for people of faith. The example of state-sanctioned Islamophobia that we see in Xinjiang against the Uyghurs is an affront to humanity. The reports of torture, imprisonment, killings and denial of people’s religion breaches multiple human rights laws, and it is genuinely welcome that the House is united in the condemnation of those atrocities. However, many residents in my constituency have contacted me, and I share their condemnation of senior members of the Netanyahu Government speaking about “flattening Gaza” or enacting “Gaza’s Nakba”. That is compounded by other dehumanising language, with Israel’s President claiming that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza.
When it comes to genocide, we look back at history. We even stand in this Chamber, and we utter the words, “Never again”, yet here we are, staring at it from afar, knowing that this tragedy is now the present for the Uyghurs and a real threat for the Palestinian people. If we are to avoid the further ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, I urge the Minister to speak directly to their colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the UK backs the United Nations’ unprecedented calls to invoke article 99 of the UN charter for a ceasefire to protect civilian populations. We must ensure that we work as an international community and strain every sinew in the pursuit of peace, an urgent lasting ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, an end to the loss of innocent life and the freeing of hostages to ensure that the current atrocities being endured are no one else’s future.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this important debate. We have perhaps become accustomed in this place to debating Islamophobia abroad. We have become accustomed to talking about the Uyghur Muslims and Srebrenica, which was mentioned earlier. My concern, however, is that we have become negligent and too often overlook what is happening at home. Perhaps the time has come to look inward.
As my party’s equality spokesperson, I am increasingly concerned by the Islamophobia we are seeing across the country and by the effects on my own community in Edinburgh West as their constituency MP. In Edinburgh West, we have a significant and vibrant Muslim community. We have a mosque in the Blackhall area, with which I am in regular contact. We have open days and surgeries. However, like many communities across the country, there is an underlying tension that is not acceptable.
A 2021 report from the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on tackling Islamophobia with Newcastle University showed that more than 80% of Muslims in Scotland who responded to the survey said that a family member had experienced Islamophobia. Some 78% of those same people thought it was getting worse. Some 75% of Muslims say that Islamophobia is a regular or everyday issue in Scottish society. As we have heard, Islamophobia is often gendered, with women being targeted for wearing a hijab or niqab.
For too long, we have seen Islamophobia as a problem that affects other places and other countries. As I say, it is time we looked closer to home. Yes, we must question the Government, but we all must also question ourselves. This debate comes at a crucial point in our cultural and social history in this country, as the horror of the war in Israel and Gaza is further heightening those tensions that I have mentioned. It is creating fear in Muslim and Jewish communities across the country.
In a recent meeting with Tell MAMA and a representative of the Community Security Trust, both groups expressed their concern about the damage being done to the relationships between their communities. They also outlined their fears about the abuse being suffered—significantly online but also in person. At that point, almost 300 Islamophobic incidents had been reported in the first 12 days after 7 October, which was a sixfold increase on the same period last year. Muslims are facing abuse and dehumanising slurs across society. That is not just unacceptable for Muslims to face; it is unacceptable for anyone in our society. I believe that we are all responsible for what happens, each and every one of us.
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Member for sharing with us all the statistics from Scotland. May I say how delighted I was to learn that every single political party in Scotland has accepted the definition, including the Scottish Conservative party? Does she not agree that now it is time that this Parliament took through the motion with the support of all parties?
Christine Jardine
The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is time that not just all the Scottish parties but that all of us accepted the definition, took it through Parliament and made sure that it is recognised. I would not want to patronise the Muslim community, the Jewish community or any other community in this country by telling them that I understand what it is like to suffer the hatred that they suffer on a daily basis, but I like to think that I am aware of it, and I will do everything I can to support them in fighting it, because every community should feel safe. That is important to me as an individual.
I think it was the hon. Member for Bradford West who said the issue was not about giving priority to any community; it was about equality for all communities, and ensuring that every community feels safe and secure. I ask the House to consider that. If any Member feels insecure, they should think about how it can be addressed. If we feel secure—if we feel that we have never been the subject of hatred, or hatred towards our community—we should think, “What can we do to ensure that other communities and other individuals feel the same way?”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want briefly to raise a few points about my constituency. I have a multicultural constituency. It has been a migrant community for more than a hundred years, and there is a sizeable Muslim community. In fact, I helped establish the first mosque—the Islamic centre in the centre of Hayes—30 years ago. We rub together pretty well. At the weekend, we had an open day at the Islamic centre to talk about how the different religions work together. There was a particular discussion about the role of Jesus Christ, and I thought it was interesting and fascinating to hear people’s views. Nevertheless, we do have problems.
Before 7 October, we had an arson attack on the Muslim women’s centre in Yeading Lane in Hayes. For the women, the tragedy of it was that the arsonist burned through the room where the holy Koran was stored. The House can imagine the distress caused. I previously raised this issue with a Minister on the Floor of the House, and was given an assurance that there would be support. At the moment, we are seeking a meeting with civil servants to go through the details; any help the Minister could provide in arranging that meeting would be really helpful, because it is quite pressing. As the insurance money hopefully comes through to repair the building, we need the security put in place fairly rapidly.
Political parties have to be straight with one another on this issue. With regard to the Conservative party, Baroness Warsi has played an exceptional role—a heroic role. I cannot understand why the Human Rights Council did not carry out an investigation into the Conservative party when Baroness Warsi and others produced their report about the Islamophobia within that party, and I think it reflects badly on the HRC. I normally support the HRC—in fact, I have been on picket lines in support of its staff when there were staff cuts—but I think it needs to examine its behaviour that regard.
Turning to the Labour party, we have to be straight— I know that at the moment in the Labour party, being straight can sometimes be dangerous. I want to raise a number of points. First, the Labour Muslim Network, which was founded a number of years ago, did an excellent job in researching and exposing Islamophobia within our own party. We need to listen to that. I cannot understand how three years on, the Labour Muslim Network is trying to establish itself as a formal affiliate to the Labour party, but still has not been allowed to affiliate.
Secondly, it is accurately reported that in my local area, for example, Ali Milani—who is one of the founders of the Labour Muslim Network, and was an excellent candidate for Uxbridge in the general election—was warned off standing again in the by-election. It was made clear that he would not be allowed to stand, which is unacceptable. I put on record that any party that allows the deselection of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) is not protecting the Muslim community in the way I would expect it to. I want to send that message. I have raised these issues in private—I have written to the leader of the Labour party—and the reason I am now raising them in public is that I have not had a sufficiently positive response that addresses those issues.
The final point I want to make with regard to the Labour party is this: why is it that when someone is accused of Islamophobia and they apologise, disciplinary action is then ended and there is no issue with regard to the Whip or whatever, but in a number of instances where a person has been accused of antisemitism, the Whip is withdrawn and they spend months awaiting any form of investigatory process? In his inquiry into the Labour party, Martin Forde addressed the issue of a potential hierarchy of racism within our party, and I am afraid that the way in which we treat individuals reinforces that concern. We all condemn antisemitism and Islamophobia, but we have to treat all forms of racism with equivalence, as well as the individuals against whom allegations have been made. I think we have a job of work in our own political parties to ensure that we tackle Islamophobia effectively, in a way that will make us—particularly the Labour party—the anti-racist party that we have always wanted to be, and an example to other political parties.
Finally, I want to emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) made: at every meeting I have in my constituency with regard to the Muslim community, I am so proud of the way that it that has come forward in a migrant community over the past 50 to 70 years and now plays such a significant role in my constituency, but also nationally. Whenever there is a problem—whenever there is an issue that I need support on and I put the call out—it is the Islamic centres and the mosques that come forward and provide the resources. In fact, the Islamic centre in Hayes was visited by the Prince and Princess of Wales only a few months ago, just to thank the people there for the work they have done in raising funds for Afghanistan and elsewhere. I put on record my thanks to the Muslim community and my gratitude for all the work they do, and my pride in being able to represent the Muslim community in my constituency.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Islamophobia is an insidious kind of racism that is prevalent not just in British society but globally. Across the world, Islamophobia looks like the continued torture in concentration camps of Uyghur Muslims in China, the merciless killing of 51 worshippers in New Zealand, and the ongoing persecution of Rohingya Muslims at the hands of Myanmar’s brutal regime.
I commend the UN for designating 15 March as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, and thank the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation for its effort. Recognising the existence of Islamophobia and how it plagues society is vital if we are to begin to tackle it. Canada and the European Commission have tasked key individuals with combating Islamophobia, and to mark Islamophobia Awareness Month, the US has announced that it will develop a national strategy to counter Islamophobia. Regrettably, we do not have the same leadership domestically, despite Islamophobia damaging public and political life in Britain. Most victims of religious hate crime in the UK are Muslims, and in October, Islamophobic incidents were up by 600%. A recent report found that 35% of British mosques experience a religiously motivated attack at least once a year.
Islamophobia is not just hate crime: it permeates every aspect of a Muslim’s life. Muslims are more likely to live in poverty, they are the UK’s least liked religious group, and most Muslims have experienced religion-based discrimination in their everyday life. All of that makes it harder for Muslims to live as equal members of British society. When I was first elected to this House, I swore my oath in English and Urdu—a language that Queen Victoria also proudly spoke. I was then subjected to a barrage of hate for daring to speak another language and for boldly expressing my Muslimness. There is a small, but increasingly vocal, minority in this country who hate the idea of a rich, pluralistic society that British Muslims contribute to. It is that minority that we all must stand up to, and to do so, we must have a clear, community-endorsed definition of Islamophobia.
In 2018, following extensive consultation with academics, experts and faith communities, the all-party group on British Muslims formulated a definition of Islamophobia. In the years since, every political party except the Conservatives has adopted that definition, alongside councils, elected Mayors, trade unions, academics and community groups across the country. However, there is one blocker to UK-wide adoption of a formal definition of Islamophobia: the Tory Government. They rejected the expert definition put forward by the APPG, claiming that it is inconsistent with the Equality Act 2010. To adopt that definition of Islamophobia at Government level would not be legally binding—it would be intended to serve as a workable measure for action against Islamophobia. No legislative change is being proposed, so the Equality Act would not be undermined. In reality, most acts that are deemed Islamophobic under the APPG’s definition would also be considered religious discrimination under the Equality Act. The APPG’s definition and the Equality Act complement each other—one does not challenge the other.
Given that the Government’s argument against that definition does not stand up, and considering that they have abandoned all plans to develop their own definition, can the Minister outline why the Government still think that the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia breaches the Equality Act if it is not legally binding? I imagine that this Government are reluctant to adopt any definition of Islamophobia, because the longer we do not have one, the longer the Conservative party cannot be in breach of it for failing to deal with the widespread Islamophobia within its own ranks.
In the local elections earlier this year, three Conservative councillors were re-elected despite having previously been suspended for alleged Islamophobia and racism, with no information provided on why they were readmitted to the party and deemed fit for public office. If we are to begin to tackle Islamophobia in British society, we need strong leadership and a commitment from the very top to root out this dangerous hate. Other nations across the world are waking up to the threat that Islamophobia poses and are doing something about it, but not the UK. The longer the Tories stay in Government, the longer we will have no leadership and no action on Islamophobia. My constituents and British Muslims across the country deserve better.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak in today’s debate, which was so brilliantly opened by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). As a Member of Parliament representing a significant Muslim community—some 30% of my constituency’s population are Muslim— I understand just how important tackling Islamophobia is, and I am grateful for this debate.
We all in this place have a duty to ensure that the UK is a welcoming, tolerant place for all, irrespective of religion or belief. We must stand up to religious hatred in all its forms. I am proud of the rich contribution that Muslim communities make to the United Kingdom, but, sadly, we have people who seek to sow division by spreading racism and hatred. Islamophobia is far too prevalent in our society.
Following consultation with academics, lawyers, and Muslim organisations, the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims defined Islamophobia, saying that it is
“rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Labour was proud to adopt the all-party group’s definition in 2019. The Conservatives are the only major political party to continue to refuse to adopt that definition, even though the Scottish Conservatives have done so.
Identifying racism and knowing how to tackle it are of paramount importance. In 2022-23, around 44% of religious hate crimes recorded by police were Islamophobic. Muslims have formed the highest proportion of victims of religiously motivated hate crimes for each of the past five years, and we know that Muslim women often suffer greater discrimination and form the majority of victims of hate crime as a result of being more easily identified as Muslim.
As noted by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Community Security Trust and Tell MAMA, rising tensions in the middle east can lead to an increase in anti-Muslim and antisemitic incidents in the UK. We know that antisemitic and Islamophobic hate crime incidents have both increased. Tell MAMA reported a sevenfold increase in anti-Muslim incidents between 7 and 29 October compared with the same period last year. We expect to see a robust response to all incidents of hate associated with the conflict. There is no place in Britain for Islamophobia, just as there is no place for antisemitism. We must not allow these tragic events to divide our communities.
In Luton, we have a history of opposing those seeking to sow division and spread racism. We recognise that our beautiful cultural fabric is made up of many voices, but we come together to speak as one town. That means diversity is our strength. We know that understanding each other is essential to creating a harmonious society and helps to tackle inaccurate fears used to underpin racist ideologies. Luton Council of Faiths works to establish, maintain and celebrate mutual respect, friendship and tolerance in Luton, including through our Luton in Harmony initiative over the past decade. Luton Council of Faiths comprises representatives from a wide range of religions, including Baha’i, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Quaker and Sikh among others. Open dialogue across our communities is so important to breaking down any bias and prejudice.
Luton has always been a welcoming town, with Muslim diasporas from across the world—whether that is from Europe, Asia or Africa. Many excellent local community events have helped to create this robust cohesion. During Ramadan, there is the Big Iftar in the town centre, where people from all our communities come to break their fast together, as well as the Unity Iftar at Madinah mosque on Oak Road, which is hosted by its neighbour Luton Town Football Club. Events such as these bring people together to understand the Muslim faith.
I am also proud that Luton Labour has developed and encouraged many Muslim members to get involved in democratic institutions by standing and getting elected as local councillors. I am pleased to say that Luton Labour group has not only a majority of women councillors, but, within that, a majority of Muslim women councillors, and I am proud to campaign alongside them every week. But I recognise that, sadly, they have been targeted for abuse, which is simply unacceptable.
I take this opportunity to give recognition to this year’s civic mayor of Luton—my good friend Councillor Yaqub Hanif, who has been excellent at demonstrating that, to tackle division and discrimination, we must all focus on equality, inclusivity and tolerance.
I finish by saying once again how proud I am to represent Luton and our wonderfully diverse town. Our Muslim communities are integral to our town’s identity, and I am their ally and, in the strongest possible terms, against anyone who seeks to spread Islamophobia. I ask the Minister again whether this Conservative Government will adopt the cross-party APPG’s definition of Islamophobia, as the Labour party did in 2019, and if not, why not.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for providing this platform for a debate of such importance. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and others on having secured it.
Once again, I rise to speak in this Chamber to address a pervasive issue that continues to affect our society deeply: the distressing rise of Islamophobia. This matter is significant not just to British Muslims, but to the very essence of what our country stands for. The Muslim community, especially in my Slough constituency, makes a huge and positive contribution to our economy and society. Today, though, I am here to voice my concerns and to challenge the Government’s inaction and indifference towards Islamophobia.
The statistics show the stark reality for many Muslims in Great Britain. An alarming 44% of all religious hate crimes last year targeted Muslims. That highlights the fact that a significant portion of our society endure persistent discrimination and fear due to their faith—an issue on which I have campaigned tirelessly. Such statistics, and the ones provided by Tell MAMA and other respected organisations, should make us all very concerned, and they highlight the need for action.
The current Israel-Hamas conflict, marked by a grave humanitarian crisis with more than 15,000 deaths, has tragically fuelled a rise in both antisemitism and Islamophobia. The harrowing images of death and devastation broadcast globally underscore the profound indirect impact that such conflicts have on societal attitudes, exacerbating domestic prejudice and hate in the UK. This time of global distress should prompt a call for unity, not be a catalyst for further division and conflict. The world does not need more conflict, and we must urgently push for peace.
The Conservative Government’s hesitation to formally define Islamophobia, despite widespread calls for them to do so, marks a significant failure. Their reluctance hinders our collective efforts to effectively confront and mitigate this hate crime. Notably, the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, which I have served as a vice- chair, has defined Islamophobia as a “form of racism” targeting manifestations of “Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. That definition is crucial in understanding and tackling the multifaceted nature of Islamophobia, and I have raised this issue on previous occasions in various meetings.
Sikhs have been targeted, taunted and even shot dead, as in the US, simply because of the way they looked, having been mistaken for Muslims because of their turban and beard. A hate-filled killer in Arizona, for example, shot to death a Sikh outside his petrol station. The attacker had reportedly declared that he wanted to
“go out and shoot some towelheads”.
This Government’s failure to recognise and adopt that definition, despite all the other major and mainstream political parties having adopted it, implies that they are neglecting the complexity of Islamophobia, leaving its victims without the necessary protection and support. The Government’s failure to define Islamophobia, coupled with divisive rhetoric and policies, especially concerning immigration and the invoking of culture wars, has fuelled an atmosphere in which Islamophobia and other forms of racism have flourished.
The Government’s approach has been marked by language that alienates and vilifies specific groups, contributing to a climate of fear and misunderstanding. That was exemplified when the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, referred to women wearing a burqa as looking like “bank robbers” and “letterboxes”, a statement that not only demeaned a religious practice, but inflamed anti-Muslim sentiment. Such racist remarks, especially from a political leader, have a tangible impact, emboldening prejudicial attitudes against Muslim communities. They led to a huge spike in hate crimes against Muslim women, with some hate-consumed individuals throwing eggs and tomatoes at them. There is still no independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative party, despite the then Prime Minister and then Chancellor promising it on national television.
In my role as a Labour Member of Parliament and an elected representative of Slough, I am committed to opposing divisive tactics and to fostering a Britain that thrives on its diversity. We must envisage a nation that unites in its varied cultural and religious make-up, standing against any rhetoric that seeks to divide us based on race, religion or origin. For example, in Slough, a major multicultural hub, our strength lies in our diversity, and it is crucial to ensure that every community feels safe and respected. We aim to develop policies that promote integration and cohesion, addressing racism and discrimination proactively and reactively. Indeed, our nation’s rich cultural and religious diversity is its core strength. Upholding and celebrating that diversity is vital to maintain Britain’s standing as a beacon of pluralism and inclusion. By actively condemning the intolerant individuals who engage in racism and hate crime in all its forms, we commit to a society that values and respects every single individual.
The time for mere words has passed. We need a Government who not only acknowledge, but actively implement policies to combat Islamophobia. We have heard some excellent examples from right hon. and hon. Members today. It is crucial to address its root causes, foster understanding and create a society where hatred finds no sanctuary.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
In a debate on Islamophobia in Parliament two years ago, I spoke up about my experience as a left-wing Muslim woman in the public eye. I spoke up about the barrage of hate I receive on a daily basis. I talked about being called a “cancer” and being told that my
“Muslim mob is a danger to humanity”,
as well as about how people tell me to “go back” to my own country. That is a difficult claim to get my head around, I must admit, since I was born in Birmingham. I spoke about the worst effects of Islamophobia, and about how they are shaped in this very Chamber at that very Dispatch Box in policy and political decisions, from attacks on civil liberties at home to disastrous decisions to wage wars abroad. I would like to say that in the two years since, things have changed and people have listened, and that people take Islamophobia more seriously, but I cannot. If anything, things have got worse.
In recent weeks, as I have stood up for the rights of the Palestinian people, I have experienced a new wave of hate. Because I am a Muslim who supports the rights of the Palestinians, far-right trolls widely share claims that I am a Hamas supporter, repeating the allegations no matter how many times I condemn Hamas’s killing of civilians. Because I am a Muslim, when I speak up about Palestinian children being indiscriminately slaughtered, people write to me telling me, “Keep your effing mouth shut, you Muslim bitch.” And because I am a Muslim, when I called for a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed—a view supported by 76% of the British public, but not this House—someone wrote to me saying it was me who was “anti-democratic” and “anti-British”, and I was again told to “go home.”
I want to live in a country that looks after the poor and the vulnerable at home, and respects human rights and international law abroad, and where the NHS is fully funded, homes are not mouldy or unaffordable, everyone can go to university without having to worry about debt, and every single person can put food on the table and keep a roof above their head. But for some people, the colour of my skin and the religion I choose to follow mean I am beyond the pale. That is difficult to process, but what makes it harder is knowing that that racism does not come from a vacuum.
As I said in the debate two years ago, that hate is not innate or natural; it is taught from the very top by people in positions of power and privilege. For example, despite a Home Office report saying that most child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men and there is no evidence that grooming gangs are disproportionately black or Asian, earlier this year the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), falsely said that grooming gangs were “almost all British-Pakistani”—a claim so strikingly wrong that even the press regulator called it out.
It is not just politicians fanning the flames of hate. Shortly after I gave my speech, the Muslim Council of Britain Centre for Media Monitoring published a report on the British media’s coverage of Muslims and Islam, analysing almost 48,000 articles and 5,500 broadcast clips. It paints a very disturbing picture of how Muslims are portrayed in the media. Articles antagonistic to Muslims were found to outnumber supportive articles by a ratio of seven to one. Islamophobic tropes were pervasive, with The Spectator, for example, asking “tough questions” such as
“can Muslims learn to put country before faith community?”
The report found that false anti-Muslim generalisations often go unchallenged on broadcast media. Recently, we have seen Islamophobia spouted by journalists, such as the newspaper editor who said that
“much of Muslim culture is in the grip of a death cult”.
With that steady drip-feeding of hate, it is little wonder that racists tell me I am not British. That is the message right-wing outlets publish, with dog whistles and sometimes even foghorns. But as I said, the worst effect of this hate is not abusive language, but policy and political decisions, and we see that today.
Earlier this year, a long-awaited review into the deeply controversial and widely discredited Prevent programme was published. The review was led by someone whose anti-Muslim views were already well-known and who had said, for example:
“Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future.”
That person had been hand-picked for the job by a Government led by a man who mocked Muslim women as “bank robbers” and “letterboxes”. It is little wonder that the review totally ignored the programme’s discriminatory impact and undermining of democratic freedoms.
Of course, Islamophobia is not confined to this country; we see dehumanisation at home and abroad. Even liberal British newspapers do not talk about Palestinian children, instead referring—I quote a recent article—to
“Palestinians aged 18 and under”.
The Palestinian people as a whole are often depicted and treated as terrorists, deserving not of rights and self-determination, but of suppression or even elimination. In India, Prime Minister Modi has introduced discriminatory anti-Muslim legislation and anti-Muslim mob violence is becoming normalised. In China, shocking human rights abuses and the suppression of Uyghur Muslims are well documented.
In the US, we have seen horrifying attacks in recent weeks. The six-year-old Palestinian American Wadea al-Fayoume was killed after being stabbed 26 times, with his landlord charged with the boy’s murder, and three young Palestinians were gunned down in what is believed to be hate crime, for the apparent wrongdoing of speaking Arabic and wearing keffiyehs. Across Europe, the Islamophobic far right is on the rise, from the hate-filled and openly Islamophobic Geert Wilders in the Netherlands to Le Pen’s continued advance in France.
Much closer to home, as I discussed in the debate two years ago, I still have serious concerns about my party’s handling of Islamophobia. The Forde report into the Labour party, commissioned by the party’s national executive committee and carried out by the distinguished Martin Forde KC, published its final report in summer last year.
It found that:
“the Party was…operating a hierarchy of racism or of discrimination with other forms of racism and discrimination”—
such as Islamophobia and anti-black racism—
“being ignored.”
Martin Forde reiterated that view this year with a stark warning that still has not been listened to. That is why I, along with the Labour Muslim Network, have called for an independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Labour party.
Today, both Islamophobia and antisemitism are rising sharply across Britain, but they are not disconnected struggles or competing concerns, as some people like to portray them. The far-right thugs who attack one group of us today will go for the other group tomorrow. The politicians who whip up hatred against migrants now will want other scapegoats in the future, and history tells us that Jewish people and Muslims are often at the top of their list. For me, the fight against Islamophobia and the fight against antisemitism are part of the same struggle: the fight to live in the world where everyone, no matter their race or religion, is able to live in dignity and freedom. I believe that we are made stronger not by not pitting our communities against each other, but by uniting our struggles and finding solidarity and safety.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for the way in which she led the debate? I do not think there was a single important part of this matter that she did not touch on extremely well.
I will pick up on one thing: the issue of definition—not the APPG definition, which I will come to, but the United Nations definition. The UN describes Islamophobia as:
“a fear, prejudice and hatred of Muslims that leads to provocation, hostility and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment, abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world. Motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism, it targets the symbols and markers of being a Muslim.”
That is a very technical description. I will come back to the evidence of what it means to Muslims in Scotland on a day-to-day basis, and then to the rather less technical definition.
To stay with the United Nations for a moment, the recent report by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief found that suspicion, discrimination and outright hatred towards Muslims has risen to “epidemic proportions”. The UN says:
“Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and other…acts of terrorism purportedly carried out in the name of Islam, institutional suspicion of Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim has escalated to epidemic proportions”
and
“widespread negative representations of Islam, and harmful stereotypes that depict Muslims and their beliefs and culture as a threat have served to perpetuate, validate and normalise discrimination, hostility and violence towards Muslim individuals and communities.”
All that is deeply disturbing, but what does it mean in practice for Muslims in Scotland? Well, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who is no longer in her place, touched on that. The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on challenging racial and religious prejudice, and Newcastle University, have told us a great deal: 75% of Muslims say that Islamophobia is an everyday issue; 80% of Muslims say that they have a friend or family member who has experienced it; 79% of Muslims are fearful of experiencing it; 84% argue that social media increases it; 85% say that the broadcast media promotes it; and 89% say that the print media promotes it. We know, and it has been reported, that Muslim women are disproportionately targeted in Islamophobic hate crimes. Again, those findings—from real people—are deeply worrying.
What, though, is the official, measured scale of the problem in Scotland? Well, the number of charges brought for religious hate crimes in Scotland over the decade between 2010-11 and 2021-22 sat at a constant of about 600 a year. Sadly, the number of charges for all hate crimes in Scotland sat at around 5,000 a year. In only one year of that same decade has the number risen above 6,000, but in only one year has it fallen below 5,000, so there is a constant background noise of religious and other hatred. We also know from the statistics that 26% of all religious hate crimes are directed at Muslims. I am sure we would all agree that no right-minded person would argue that those numbers are anything other than too high.
Hearteningly, Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal Service take these matters seriously. It is reported that more than 80% of all the charges for religious hate crime do end up in court. That will cover a multitude of sins, but I believe at least that that matter is taken seriously. We cannot therefore dismiss Islamophobia simply because the number of those charged has sat constantly at 600 a year. We cannot disregard any hate crime, when the number is sitting at about 5,000 a year in Scotland. We cannot downplay the impact of Islamophobia, because, as we have heard from the cross-party group and others, the effect on people is widespread and profound. We cannot diminish the impact of Islamophobia on Muslims, or the rest of society, simply because a high proportion of the perpetrators are dragged to court, although I am glad that that is the case. And we cannot wish away the problem. Tackling it will need cogent, coherent and concrete action, with clear political leadership.
Let me return to the report by the Scottish Parliament cross-party group. Among many recommendations, it tells us that Scotland needs urgent education reforms to combat the scourge of Islamophobia—I am certain that is the case in England too. It tells us that Muslim women in Scotland are more likely to encounter Islamophobia than men, and calls for funding and support for organisations and initiatives that promote social cohesion and integration, particularly for Muslim women. I am certain that that demand would be mirrored in England as well. I will not go through the list of the many other recommendations the group makes, all of which I agree with.
I want now to get to the point on definition, because the cross-party group persuaded all of Scotland’s political parties to adopt the formal definition of Islamophobia. That was described as
“a landmark moment that will help tackle prejudice in Scotland.”
Members of the all-party group here will recognise the definition:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
If every political party represented in the Scottish Parliament can formally adopt that, I would agree with the Labour chair of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group, who said:
“I now urge the UK Government to adopt the definition so that we can challenge hatred and prejudice wherever it exists across the country.”
That does not strike me as being contentious; it ought to have been done already and if it has not been, it should be done very quickly indeed.
I want to end with a rebuttal to those who dismiss the issue of Islamophobia. I am talking about those hard of thinking who argue that there would be no Islamophobia “if only they”—whoever “they” are—“were more like ‘us’.” It is not clear what that means. I feel strongly on this and I wish to challenge that view by quoting something that UN Secretary-General António Guterres said when marking the first International Day to Combat Islamophobia, in 2021. He pointed out that anti-Muslim bigotry is part of a larger trend of a resurgence in ethno-nationalism, neo-Nazism, stigma and hate speech targeting vulnerable populations, including Muslims, Jews and some minority Christian communities, as well as others. He said:
“As the Holy Quran reminds us: nations and tribes were created to know one another. Diversity is a richness, not a threat”.
That mirrors what many have said; it is intolerance that is the problem, not diversity. It is incumbent on all of us to challenge intolerance, including Islamophobia, and to do so, to be brutally honest, whenever we see it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this important debate. Islamophobia, like all forms of discrimination, serves to divide our communities. It is a grave form of injustice that restricts the ability of Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslims, to participate equally and completely in our society. Islamophobia culminates in violent hate crimes, targeted discrimination and structural disparities affecting access to employment, housing and healthcare, and it impedes the ability of those affected to go about their daily lives. Our failure to take action to tackle this hatred threatens our democratic principles of fairness and equality, and in so doing, undermines our social cohesion as a whole.
We see this hatred manifested online, on our streets and in our public spaces, and at its most extreme, in violent acts of terror and murder. We remember Makram Ali, who was senselessly murdered in Finsbury Park in 2017, alongside the attempted murder of nine others. That premeditated attack on innocent Muslims by a far-right attacker devastated victims, families and entire communities. We also remember two more grandfathers, Mushin Ahmed and Mohammed Saleem, as well as the victims of the Christchurch terrorist attacks. All had their lives tragically taken from them as a result of insidious hatred. This serves as a terrible reminder of the consequences of Islamophobia and the failure to tackle it.
This debate comes at a difficult time in the international community. The disgusting rise in both Islamophobia and antisemitism since the attack on 7 October exposed just how real the issue of discrimination is on Britain’s streets. Let me start by condemning those brutal attacks and the shocking rise in racism that we have seen since that day. Since Hamas’s terrorist attack, our country has seen a disgusting rise in antisemitism, with Jewish businesses attacked, Jewish schools marked with red paint and Jewish families hiding who they are. We have also seen an appalling surge in Islamophobia, with racist graffiti, mosques forced to ramp up security and British Muslims and Palestinians spoken to as though they were terrorists. While this debate focuses on the experiences of Islamophobia, we cannot lose sight of the ongoing injustice faced by the Jewish community in Britain.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the most telling points made during the debate was the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) saying at the conclusion of her speech that the most effective response to Islamophobia and antisemitism is when both communities stand by each other in resisting both those threats?
Liz Twist
Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) made a very important point. We all need to stand together to ensure that we defeat Islamophobia and antisemitism.
Members who have taken part in this debate include my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Coventry South. All of them have spoken about their experiences and those of the communities in their constituencies. For some of the Members who have spoken, Islamophobia has affected their safety and that of their communities. One thing they all have in common is that they were clear that we must act to tackle Islamophobia and ensure that we take real action, and all called on the Government to do that.
Year after year, British Muslims are the victims of the highest proportion of religiously motivated hate crime. Over the past 10 years, we have seen a shocking and rapid rise in incidents being reported to Tell MAMA, as we have heard, with cases doubling between 2012 and 2022. Tell MAMA’s tireless commitment to tackling Islamophobia has ensured that we have a detailed database, from which it is possible to identify key trends emerging in frequency, scope and substance, so that we can work to tackle the particular forms that Islamophobia takes. That data shows that high-profile events act as a trigger for steep rises in bigotry, both online and at street level, as they are weaponised by perpetrators to drive discrimination and violence.
This week, Tell MAMA reported that it has recorded more than 1,200 cases following the Hamas terror attacks of 7 October, representing a sevenfold rise on the same period last year and the largest, most sustained spike in reports to its service across a 55-day reporting period. Behind these numbers are real people who have been subjected to abuse and harm.
It is vital that we come together in this House to say that Islamophobia is not acceptable in any form. The Labour party stands firmly with the victims of Islamophobic hatred and commits to working across our nation to ensure that it is eradicated. It is of utmost importance that we recognise the impact of Islamophobia on people’s lives, and that we recognise the work of grassroots, community and religious organisations that have dedicated themselves to tackling it.
The message from Muslim communities and organisations is clear that, to tackle this bigotry, we must be able to identify it. Yet this Government have said that they do not support taking forward an official definition of Islamophobia. Following a six-month inquiry into the subject, the definition proposed by the APPG on British Muslims has been widely recognised and endorsed across many sections of civil society, including among academics, Muslim communities and prominent Muslim organisations. I am proud to say that we have adopted this definition in the Labour party, and it has also been adopted by the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives.
In 2021, Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the chair of the Labour party and the leader of the Local Government Association Labour group wrote to the leaders of all Labour groups in local government to encourage their councils to adopt this definition. Since then, hundreds of councils across the country have taken the APPG definition on board, yet the Government have seen fit to reject this definition and have since failed to come forward with an alternative definition of their own, as they had once promised. This dereliction is both substantive and symbolic in its failure to take Islamophobia seriously.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Lady will have seen that I have challenged my Government’s actions. If she were a Minister in that position, would she commit to appointing an independent adviser on Islamophobia straight away, as my party has on antisemitism? Can she confirm that, looking at the figures for Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism, there will be equal funding to deal with those two unacceptable forms of behaviour?
Liz Twist
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We first need to get the basics right by adopting this definition of Islamophobia. We are committed to taking further steps to ensure that Islamophobia is stamped out.
Tell MAMA has documented how this racism dehumanises Muslims, sometimes drawing on conspiracy theories to do so. It targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness, whether real or imagined, and in doing so reduces diverse communities of people to a group identity. The power of the APPG definition is that it recognises this. Just like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, the APPG’s definition is not legally binding. Instead, it is intended to serve as a workable yardstick for action against Islamophobia.
We must be able to name and identify Islamophobia, and that applies as much to the political arena as anywhere else. Just as high-profile events trigger peaks in discriminatory behaviour, what we say in this House and in our media has an impact on the abuse that people face online and on our streets. When the former Prime Minister, the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, referred to Muslim women as “letterboxes”, there was a dramatic rise in incidents reported to Tell MAMA. The week following his comments saw the number of incidents rise by 375%. Over that month, 42% of street-based cases directly referenced him or language used in his column.
Since then, we have continued to hear language in the House that risks endangering ethnic and religious minorities. We have seen the former Home Secretary refer to pro-Palestinian marches as “hate marches”, and the Conservative London mayoral candidate engaging in Islamophobic tropes.
Paul Bristow
I appreciate the hon. Lady giving way, but is she planning to react to criticisms from Labour Members on the Benches behind her, who cited the Forde inquiry, which stated that a “hierarchy of racism” operated in the Labour party?
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Member for that comment, and I did indeed hear those comments. What I would say is that, within the Labour party, we are seeking to address any issues that relate to Islamophobia.
We must remember that we have a choice in this House: to empower communities or to seek to divide them. Our words have consequences beyond this Chamber. It is deeply worrying that the normalisation of extremist language from the Conservative party has directly coincided with a rise in offences being reported. As political parties, we must, as I said, take responsibility for identifying and tackling Islamophobia in our own ranks. When people ask, “Well, what’s Labour doing about it?”, the answer is that that is what we are doing: we have changed our party, and we are ready to change the country. At our party conference in 2021, Labour passed a new independent complaints process to make it fairer and easier for people to bring forward cases of discrimination. We have adopted new codes of conduct on Islamophobia, and we have invested in training staff and publishing a handbook that will illustrate how our party can challenge Islamophobia directly. We have committed, when in government, to tackle structural racial inequalities with a landmark race equality Act.
We owe it to our Muslim communities and to communities of all faiths to do more to protect them from these forms of hate. The first step in tackling that hate is to identify it, so will the Minister commit today to adopting the APPG definition of Islamophobia? Will she also encourage Conservative-run local authorities to adopt it? Will she and her colleagues work with the police to ensure that victims of Islamophobic abuse feel able to report incidents and that they are supported and kept in the loop throughout the process? What steps will she take in her own Department to understand household and neighbourhood-related cases of Islamophobic abuse and to work with local authorities and Muslim communities to ensure that such cases are handled sensitively? Finally, what efforts are the Government making to understand and tackle Islamophobia in educational institutions and to eradicate ethnicity pay gaps?
We owe it to Muslim communities to tackle Islamophobia in our party and in wider society—on the streets of our country and online. We have committed to doing so, and I hope the Government will do the same.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for this debate, and I pay tribute to every Member who spoke. The hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) talked about their own personal experience of abuse, and I am deeply troubled by it.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for his work as the special envoy for freedom of religion and belief, and I am always happy to talk to him. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), who represents a large Muslim community. I would also like to say to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that I am happy to help facilitate a meeting. The debate also has personal significance for me, as mine is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. In fact, I met the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) with a large delegation from Indonesia whom I had happened to bump into that morning at my local mosque. I am privileged in that more than 12% of my electorate in Kensington are Muslim, and Kensington is home to the al-Manaar mosque, which played a pivotal role of support during the Grenfell tragedy and the pandemic. My constituency is also home to the Ismaili Centre in South Kensington, the religious and cultural centre of Ismaili Muslims in the UK, who have such a tradition of charitable giving.
Many Members have said today that this is not an issue simply of one religion, and I am pleased that there is a very active interfaith group in my constituency where representatives of the al-Manaar mosque, the Holland Park synagogue, the Holland Park gurdwara and several Christian churches come together regularly. We met collectively soon after 7 October. I am also proud of the fact that the first Muslim MP to become a Secretary of State and the holder of one of the great offices of state was a Conservative—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is also a good friend of mine.
I pay tribute to our British Muslim communities who make a huge contribution to the United Kingdom in all walks of life, and to the strengthening of the ties that bind our country together. We have 3.9 million British Muslims, 6.5% of the UK population. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister hosted an Iftar and an Eid reception at 10 Downing Street, where he was joined by many committed champions of Muslim charities and organisations who, day in day out, enrich our social capital. Muslim values are, of course, British values. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law and equal rights are what define us as a society, and recognising and championing those shared values is the greatest defence against those who would seek to divide us.
Naz Shah
I genuinely welcome the Minister’s response and the passion with which she is laying out her thoughts, but is she aware that there is a list that Muslim organisations have to tick in order to enjoy those samosas that are offered at 10 Downing Street? The Muslim Council of Britain, one of the largest mainstream Muslim organisations, does not make the list. Organisations that do not agree with the Government are not included in it. Will the Minister be encouraging 10 Downing Street to change that policy?
Felicity Buchan
I am very much of the view that 10 Downing Street is in a position to decide whom to invite. I do not think that I am in that position.
I want to make it very clear that this Government will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form, and will seek to stamp it out where it occurs. Sadly, however, as we have heard, since the beginning of the conflict between Israel and Hamas we have witnessed a substantial increase in the number of incidents of anti-Muslim hatred reported in Britain. The Government are deeply concerned about the sharp rise in anti-Muslim hatred, which comes alongside a steep increase in antisemitic incidents, as well as wider community tensions. Tell MAMA, as many have said, has documented a total of more than 1,200 anti-Muslim cases as of 30 November. This represents an unacceptable sevenfold surge compared to the same period in 2022, and the biggest and most sustained spike in reports to Tell MAMA across a 55-day reporting period.
The Prime Minister has been clear that we stand with British Muslim communities, and he recently visited Tell MAMA to see first-hand the work it is doing to support British Muslims at this difficult time. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Secretary have also met Tell MAMA and Muslim experts to hear from them about the challenges arising from the conflict.
Sarah Owen
On the anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia that the Minister describes, could she define what that Islamophobia is? In May 2023 one of her ministerial colleagues in the Department said that they would not accept the APPG’s definition and wrote:
“The proposed definition could also unintentionally undermine freedom of speech and prevent legitimate criticism of Islamist extremism or unacceptable cultural practices.”
Can the Minister describe how that is the case?
Felicity Buchan
I will go on to talk about definitions, but I will continue briefly on Tell MAMA, if I may.
This year Tell MAMA marked its 10-year anniversary. Over the past decade, I am glad to say, it has directly assisted more than 20,000 people with casework, advice, emotional and counselling support and signposting. I am also proud that the Government have given Tell MAMA more than £6 million of funding since its inception in 2012. In light of the current increase in reports to Tell MAMA, we have uplifted its funding to more than £1 million this financial year to support it with the rise in casework.
In addition to supporting Tell MAMA and bringing together Muslim voices, we have extended the deadline for applications to the protective security for mosques scheme. Mosques and Muslim community centres will now have until 31 December to apply for funding for the scheme. The extension has been granted in light of the current tensions we see playing out on UK streets and comes with an additional £5 million of funding this year, bringing the total Government funding for the scheme to just under £30 million. That announcement was made at the autumn statement. That is vital funding that mosques and, for the first time, Muslim faith schools can use to procure physical security measures to combat the discrimination and intolerance faced by Muslim communities. I am pleased to say that that funding will continue into 2025. Plans are in place to introduce guarding services for both mosques and Muslim faith schools later this year.
Felicity Buchan
I will, but this will be the last intervention I will take.
Dr Offord
I am grateful to the Minister. She will be aware that the Community Security Trust, which is based in my constituency, has long offered advice and assistance to other faith groups, including Muslim schools and mosques, to ensure that their safety is equally paramount to that of the Jewish community.
Felicity Buchan
I pay tribute to the CST for all the work it does. I have mentioned that security funding provision for mosques is just under £30 million, but I can tell hon. Members that the total security budget for faith communities is £50.9 million in total.
Felicity Buchan
I am afraid I am not going to take any more interventions. I have already taken one from the hon. Lady and I am conscious that there is another debate to come.
We remain fully committed to tackling anti-Muslim hatred head on, through a co-ordinated cross-departmental effort, working with the Home Office and obviously with the police. We already have some of the strongest legislation in the world to tackle hate crime and, where groups incite racial hatred or are engaged in racially or religiously motivated criminal activity, we would expect them to be prosecuted and to face the full force of the law. To help to improve our understanding of hate crime, we have been working closely with the police in recent years to improve our data and we can now disaggregate hate crimes by ethnicity and by religion.
Our support for British Muslims is reflected by our strong track record of working with international partners to respond to hatred and intolerance and to promote freedom of religion and belief. To that end, in response to a question from an hon. Member, we are proud to have supported the United Nations General Assembly resolution last year establishing 15 March as International Day to Combat Islamophobia.
Felicity Buchan
I have said that I will take no more interventions.
Before I finish, I want to clarify this Government’s position on terminology. I thank the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims and the two co-chairs, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, for the work they have championed to celebrate the contributions of British Muslims and to tackle prejudice, discrimination and hatred against Muslims in the UK. However, I want to make it clear that this Government do not accept that particular definition of Islamophobia. The definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins. The proposed definition could also unintentionally undermine freedom of speech. The term “anti-Muslim hatred” is more precise and better reflects UK hate crime legislation. Let me put it in simple terms: free speech entitles people to express views on religion or ideology, but they must not hate or discriminate against someone because of their religion. That is why we think that “anti-Muslim hatred” is a more appropriate term.
I have been asked about the Government’s future steps. I am glad to say that we are undertaking broad and extensive engagement on religious hatred against all communities. We are considering all issues as part of that, including definitions. We know that British Muslims feel especially vulnerable at this time. I hope it is crystal clear through the many initiatives that I have outlined that this Government will always stand up for British Muslims. They are an integral part of our proudly plural, multi-faith, multi-ethnic United Kingdom. We have said loud and clear that anti-Muslim hatred has no place in British society and we will not allow the scourge of religious hatred to manifest in any shape or form.
During debates such as these, I often reflect on the wisdom of the former Member for Batley and Spen, Jo Cox, when she remarked:
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
This Government are committed to ensuring that the values of diversity, tolerance and compassion extend to all our communities.
Naz Shah
There we have it. I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate, but the Government policy and response to tackling Islamophobia is: “We’ll pick and choose who we invite to No. 10 for tea and samosas, but no policy. And we will not accept your definition as you Muslims decide to define it based on your experience of discrimination. No, we don’t accept it, because we are the Government, and when it comes to you Muslims, we will apply not the liberal democratic principles that we apply to the rest of the country, but a totalitarian approach.” That is the Government’s response to tackling Islamophobia. Well done.
What was I expecting? Dare I imagine a Government who would not miss another opportunity to put policy in place to tackle Islamophobia? No; just a long list of opportunities missed by this Government and this Prime Minister, who “stands with the British Muslim communities.” No—not unless they fit the Government’s criteria.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck. If it feels like gaslighting and sounds like gaslighting, as a Muslim and a representative of a large, Muslim constituency of Bradford, let me tell the Government: it is gaslighting. That is what we have had from those on the Government Benches today. What a shame that they did not uphold the British values that bring us here: the British values of equality, fairness, justice and treating people equally. The Government are saying, “Let’s treat you Muslims differently. We are not going to give you a definition of Islamophobia, and we do not want you to have a say on what it feels like to experience Islamophobia. We will just call it anti-Muslim hatred.”
The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) was right to say that the Prime Minister is not just gaslighting, but has created a hierarchy of racism. He does not treat Islamophobia as equal, and it disheartens me. I will just wait for the next general election and let people vote with their feet by choosing the party that stands for equality, justice and fairness. It certainly ain’t the Tories.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling Islamophobia.
Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; believes that the Government needs to respect the will of Parliament and meet the implementation deadline at the end of 2023; encourages the Government to lay an Order in Council formally requiring the UK’s Overseas Territories to implement public registers of beneficial ownership if the deadline is not met; and considers public registers of beneficial ownership to be an essential transparency measure to combat tax evasion, money laundering and other economic crimes.
This debate should not be necessary. The House expressed its view when it agreed an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 that required overseas territories to voluntarily introduce registers of beneficial ownership within two years or face an Order in Council mandating compliance. Five years have passed since the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I moved the amendment, and the only overseas territory to comply with the legislation is Gibraltar, which I salute. While I understand that the Minister is making progress with some of the other jurisdictions, they have yet to comply with our legislation.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Journalists have revealed that the family of Asif Aziz, a landlord to my constituents in Britannia Point, Colliers Wood, manages a large property portfolio registered under dozens of companies on the Isle of Man. There is no beneficial owner listed, so complaints can never reach the landlord. We already have legislation that requires offshore companies that own properties to declare their owners on a register. Does my right hon. Friend agree that properly resourced enforcement is essential, and that having public registers of beneficial owners would make it much easier to identify and scrutinise the beneficial owners of offshore shell companies?
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention. Sadly, it is an issue not just of enforcement but of definition. I bet that the landlord in her constituency owns the properties through a trust, and there is no openness about beneficial ownership of trusts. She makes a very important point.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate.
I strongly support this debate. I put it to the right hon. Lady that the reason why people hide things in trusts and offshore is either to avoid embarrassment or to avoid tax. People ought to do better, so that they will not be embarrassed, and they ought to pay tax properly.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I thank the hon. Member for his support. I agree that it is partly about reputation and partly about avoiding tax, but it is also about indulging in economic crime, from money laundering through to the worst crimes that stain our country and our economy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Father of the House has just intervened and I am the longest-serving Member on the Opposition side of the House, may I say that I am a long-term supporter of what my right hon. Friend has been trying to do? Owing to our time together as undergraduates at the London School of Economics, I know that she is a determined woman. Let us get on with it—let us hold these people to account and change the law.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I thank my hon. Friend for his support—he is probably my oldest friend in the House; we go back many years—and I hope that the Government heard his urging.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Could we add one more to the list of reasons why people conceal their identities in this way, which is to avoid sanctions, including sanctions placed by our own Government?
Dame Margaret Hodge
The right hon. Member makes a really important point, which I will come to later. He is right: this is a national security threat as well as a threat to our economy.
The Government have yet to comply with the legislation by making an Order in Council to mandate compliance by the overseas territories. After discussions between the Crown dependencies and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and myself, the three Crown dependencies —Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—announced in May 2019 that they were committed to introducing public registers and set out a plan to do so. Although I welcomed that in principle, I was concerned that their commitment was qualified and that their action plan contained a number of opt-out clauses. However, on the basis of their commitment, we chose not to legislate but to trust them. It now seems that our trust was misplaced. They are reneging on that commitment and using every excuse not to comply.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I understand how strongly the right hon. Member feels. May I point out that, as a matter of constitutional fact, we have no right to legislate for any of the Crown dependencies? Constitutionally, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I have enormous respect and time for the hon. Member, but I have an opinion from a renowned KC that we sought at that time—I will come to it later—which contradicts entirely his point and says that we do have the constitutional right to legislate.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I want to comment not on the substance of what the right hon. Lady is talking about but merely on the procedural aspects. She will know that the Procedure Committee is looking at the impact of legislation in this place on devolved legislatures, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, and I am interested in her comments and look forward to her speech, but does she agree that we should try to find a way for the voice of the overseas territories to be heard when we legislate in this place if there are implications for them?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Indeed. I would love for us to be able to do this in a consensual way; that would obviously be the best way to proceed. Sadly, we have been waiting for 10 years, and my patience has worn a little thin. Given the implications both for national security and for the economy, the time has come to say, “Enough is enough.” We should use the powers that we have.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The right hon. Member is being generous with her time. The 2022 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that unrestricted public access to beneficial ownership information was incompatible with the right to life. Will she cover that?
Dame Margaret Hodge
I will. The hon. Member will know as well as I do that we are no longer a member of the European Union, so we are not bound by that finding.
Why does all this matter? The epidemic of tax avoidance, tax evasion and economic crime flourishes in an environment of secrecy, and our overseas territories and Crown dependencies facilitate that secrecy. We know from the ever-growing number of leaks of data on financial misdemeanours that their role is central to enabling economic crime. Half the shell companies exposed in the 2016 Panama papers were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. In 2017, the Paradise papers—a massive tranche of documents leaked from the offshore law firm Appleby—showed that a frightening number of frontline politicians held secret accounts, with the overseas territories appearing prominently as destinations of choice for hiding money. Those included people such as Justin Trudeau’s chief fundraiser, Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Brazil’s Finance Minister, Uganda’s Foreign Minister, and our own Lord Ashcroft, who had—and probably still has—a Bermuda-based trust where he hides some of his wealth.
Some 20% of the files in the FinCEN—Financial Crimes Enforcement Network—leak of 2020 contained clients that listed an address in the British Virgin Islands. The leak also revealed, because it was a leak of documents from an American agency, that the Americans viewed Britain as a higher-risk jurisdiction for its role in money laundering and financial crime. The Pandora papers leak of 2021 involved 12 million files, with data from 14 different law firms and company services providers. Over two thirds of the companies analysed in that batch of leaked documents were registered in the BVI. A World Bank review of 213 corruption cases that were investigated over the 30-year period to 2010 found that 70% involved anonymous shell companies. The UK, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies accounted for the second jurisdiction in terms of the number of corruption cases associated with it.
Mr Sheerman
What I am learning from my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech is that London is the centre of the world for hiding money, because so many professionals in this city know how to do it. Is that correct?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Yes. Sadly, London has become the jurisdiction of choice for too much of our dirty money. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax has been successful—albeit not as much as I would have liked—in achieving changes to economic crime legislation to challenge and start tackling that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on leading the debate, and more particularly on the forensic and persistent way she has dealt with this issue over so many years. It is clear that London is the centre of much of the wrongdoing in this area. That is not a coincidence; it is because the Government have been permissive. Has she had an indication of whether they are now prepared to back her proposals?
Dame Margaret Hodge
My hon. Friend is right. I have often said that it is not just this Government who have done that; the Labour Government, in their time, also deregulated to such an extent that they allowed London to become the centre of this activity. I do not feel that the Government are doing all that they can to try to turn that around. I await a future Labour Government, and I will watch Labour Ministers with an eagle eye to ensure that they do that.
The debate is not just about the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating economic crime; their activities as secrecy jurisdictions are a threat to our national security, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. The Foreign Affairs Committee said as much in a report on the matter, and as recently as November it called on the Government to ensure that the overseas territories fulfil their commitment, adding that
“there should be no further deadline extensions.”
We know, for example, that between 2008 and 2018, £68 billion flowed out of Russia and into our overseas territories. We are a favourite jurisdiction for receiving Russian-laundered money. We know that individuals who are sanctioned use the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to hide their assets just before sanctioning to prevent those assets from being frozen. Abramovich and Usmanov are two classic examples of that practice.
We know the role of the overseas territories in preventing us from knowing the actual beneficial owner of property in the UK. Over 70% of the properties in the list of those that we know about are owned by companies registered either in the Crown dependencies or the BVI. We still cannot identify the beneficial owners of two thirds of those 70%, because they use trusts to hide their identity, and 85%—more than eight out of 10—of those trust arrangements are based in the three Crown dependencies and the BVI.
Most recently, in the Cyprus papers, which have just been uncovered, we found a direct link between Vladimir Putin and Roman Abramovich, with money going from Abramovich to two men dubbed as “wallets” for Putin—a man whose salary is $100,000, but whose wealth is rumoured to be between $125 billion and $200 billion. The theft of money from the Russian people is facilitated by secrecy jurisdictions such as Cyprus, but also by our own tax havens.
The problem is massive, and the role of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies is central. Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton understood that when he went to Davos in January 2013—over 10 years ago—and warned multinationals to
“wake up and smell the coffee”.
I will give a few more quotes from him. In 2013, he pledged:
“Every one of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are going to have an action plan on beneficial ownership”.
He told the overseas territories to rip aside the “cloak of secrecy” by creating public registers of beneficial ownership. In 2014, he wrote to the overseas territories, saying that public registers were
“vital to meeting the urgent challenges of illicit finance and tax evasion.”
In September 2015, he accused them of
“frankly…not moving anywhere near fast enough…if we want to break the business model of people stealing money and hiding it in places where it can’t be seen: transparency is the answer.”
When Lord Cameron launched our UK register in 2016, he said that
“it’s better for us all to have an open system which everyone has access to, because the more eyes that look at this information the more accurate it will be.”
At the anti-corruption summit in May 2016, he said:
“We’ve talked about the need for every country to ultimately reach what I call the gold standard of having a public register of beneficial ownership. And I am clear that I include all the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.”
Lord Cameron is now in a position to act, and I urge the Minister to tell his boss to do so. When even Nigeria, Ukraine, Albania and Morocco have introduced public registers, why can our tax havens not?
Using the European Court of Justice ruling to delay the implementation of public registers is a convenient but lame excuse. It actually has not deterred Gibraltar. While some countries have closed their registers, others have kept them open. Crown dependencies in particular are acting in a completely dishonourable way. Their role in facilitating economic crime and tax avoidance is indisputable, and their protestations to the contrary are simply untrue. Their behaviour in providing public assurances that they will move towards public registers but claiming that the European court ruling prevents them from doing so is, in my view, unforgivable.
Mr Sheerman
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. I absolutely support everything that she is saying, but can we also have more publicity about what is happening with people who do not pay tax in this country? Jim Ratcliffe of INEOS has become very rich and now does not pay tax in this country. I understand that the Daily Mail does not pay any taxes. Could we not have an ad in The Sunday Times rich list about those who actually pay their taxes?
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am left wondering whether The Sunday Times would ever publish that—we shall see.
Let me address the point made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). In April 2019, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and I sought legal advice about whether it would be constitutionally lawful for the UK Parliament to legislate to compel all Crown dependencies to establish public registers of beneficial ownership. I have the advice here, which concluded:
“It is beyond doubt that the intrusion of criminal funds into the UK economy threatens the interests of the UK. It is also beyond doubt that extensive funds in this category emanate from the Crown dependencies.”
The last sentence states: “The proposed amendment”—we put an amendment to the King’s Counsel to consider whether it was lawful—
“is a constitutionally legitimate and lawful exercise of the UK’s powers to secure its domestic interests by protecting confidence in its financial institutions and the integrity of the commercial life of the nation”.
Finally—I recognise that we are running out of time— I want to touch on the compromise that I think the Minister is seeking to secure in his negotiations with our tax havens. The compromise is that in order to have access, a member of the public needs to have a legitimate interest, a term that was introduced in the European Union’s sixth anti-money laundering directive. We already have that proviso in relation to the register of overseas properties, and I draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that Transparency International has put in inquiries in six cases to get information, has waited for four to six months, and has then seen those requests for information turned down by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. All of those requests were in relation to trusts listed as the beneficial owners of overseas companies that hold property here in the UK, and we would have expected them to be on that register and for the information to be provided.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Surely, every single citizen of this country has a legitimate interest in closing the kinds of loopholes that have allowed rotten, dirty money to come flooding into our jurisdiction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has had huge detrimental effects on ordinary people—who do not have trust funds and are unlikely to inherit anything—such as the huge increases in property prices that have forced many people out of the housing market?
Dame Margaret Hodge
My hon. Friend makes an important point: those who suffer the most are the poorest in our community. One must remember that no tax is levied on all this illicit finance, so it does not fund the public services that we require. I would also point out to the Minister that a legitimate interest proviso does not meet the requirements of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: the terms of the draft Order in Council specifically said that we want
“a compliant publicly accessible register”.
I ask the Minister to think about that.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant—we all know that. If we are serious about our effects to clamp down on dirty money and eliminate it from Britain, and from our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, we must have public registers, so that we can at the very least start to follow the money.
Sir Julian Lewis
For the sake of people who might not be experts in this field, can the right hon. Lady explain the extent to which those Crown dependencies and overseas territories themselves know where the real ownership of the resources resides? Can we be sure that they themselves know what information is being concealed and ought to be made public, or that we will have got to the bottom of the matter if it is made public?
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am not sure I can answer that, because I do not know whether they know, but there have been one or two instances where whistleblowers have come to see me—about Jersey, for example. It has been very difficult to find out and identify how much the Jersey authorities knew, and why or whether they took action on the information that is available. It would be wonderful if the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee could look at this issue in greater detail to establish that.
Illicit finance is not just an evil in itself: it is the golden thread that runs through all serious crime, from drug smuggling to people smuggling. It threatens our national security, hits the poorest countries the hardest, and starves our public services of much-needed investment. It was in recognition of that importance that we established the strong cross-party consensus in the House that led to the 2018 law, which was agreed unanimously in this House. Ten years have passed since David Cameron first openly supported public registers, and five years have passed since we legislated, but we are still waiting. That is not good enough.
It is the job of the Executive to implement the will of Parliament. To that end, I ask the Minister to take two actions. First, will he now lay an Order in Council, requiring the overseas territories to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership forthwith? Secondly, will he legislate to require Crown dependencies to do the same? If the Government do not act, I can assure him that Parliament will, for we must—for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our security and for the sake of our reputation. I urge the Government to move forward on this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Five people have indicated that they wish to speak, and the wind-ups will begin at 4.30. That means eight minutes for Richard Thomson, 10 minutes each for Stephen Doughty and Mr Rutley, and two minutes for Margaret Hodge to wind up. If people stick to five minutes, everybody will get equal time.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) in her place and I congratulate her on securing this debate. She and I have agreed on many issues and have worked together closely in the past. I happen to support the concept of a public register of beneficial ownership in the United Kingdom, and I supported it when it was first introduced.
I declare my interest as chair of the Gibraltar all-party parliamentary group. As the right hon. Lady has observed, Gibraltar has established a public register of beneficial ownership. It is right, therefore, that we should not treat all the overseas territories as homogenous. In one respect, Gibraltar, with its particular links both to the United Kingdom and Europe, has chosen to go in that direction, and we should support it in having done so. That was its decision as a self-governing overseas territory. It has continued to do that, even though it must be observed—and we should not make light of this fact—that the ruling of the European Court of Justice has now meant that some 23 of the 27 EU states have closed their registers. We should be careful about dismissing that. It does not apply to us anymore, because we have left the European Union, but we should not dismiss that fact and simply pooh-pooh it, because it has an impact on others. Gibraltar chose, despite that, to continue with its register.
That brings us to the position of the Crown dependencies. I refer to this matter, of course, as chair of the Justice Committee; we have to remember that the constitutional position of the Crown dependencies is totally different from that of the overseas territories. They are not part of the United Kingdom and never have been. I say that with due respect to any legal opinion that can be produced—frankly, though, one legal opinion counts for very little against centuries of constitutional convention and the views of successive British Governments of all parties.
The simple fact is that the Crown dependencies have never been subject to this Parliament. They are not represented in this Parliament. They have their own legislatures, which are sovereign in those matters. We should not allow good intentions to lead us into arrogance as an institution and purport to legislate in areas where we have no right. I happen to think that, if I were in one of those legislatures, I might well be making the case for broadening out their registers, but it is not for us to presume to do so.
There has been some progress. As a Select Committee, we took some evidence from the Crown dependencies in our role of scrutinising the Ministry of Justice, which handles the relationship—it is not the Foreign Office that does so. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) in his place. He has established a very constructive relationship with the Crown dependencies.
What we have is this: the Crown dependencies have chosen at the moment not to go down the route that we have gone down. If we want them to go down that route, we must persuade them to do so of their own volition as sovereign independent countries. That may well be where they get to. At the end of the day, there has been some movement. As a matter of fact, were they here, they would say that they do have central, fully compliant, authorised and accurate registers of beneficial ownership. They are not open to the public as of yet, but they do meet international standards. They are subject to the Moneyval monitoring process of the European Union and they comply with all the international standards. We have chosen to go further than those standards, but they have gone as far as that.
Secondly, all three of them, in lockstep on national interest matters and money laundering, transpose into their domestic law all the sanctions that we have brought in as the UK in relation to Russia, and it is no good pretending otherwise. The national security argument is therefore, frankly, a rather thin one. There are better arguments to make, such as good practice. None the less, they told us when they gave evidence to the Committee that there has been an intention to move towards a greater degree of openness in their registers. They have taken the view, and it is their choice at the moment, on their legal advice—their legal system is as good in their sphere as ours is in ours—that they wish to take stock of the decision of the European Court of Justice and the impacts it may have on them, not least because they have a data adequacy agreement with the EU.
When they read the detailed decision of the ECJ, as I have, the Crown dependencies found difficulties in both a disproportionality between general public access and rights to privacy—those rights under the charter of fundamental rights, I might observe, mirror exactly those in the European convention on human rights, which, as it happens, binds us still—and in relation to data protection. They were concerned about a potential risk to their data protection equivalence with the EU.
Let us hope that we are able to find a way in which we can all agree a sensible step forward. As I understand it, the Crown dependencies are committed to making an announcement later this month that they will be extending their work further. They are looking first of all at obliged entities—people who need to carry out due diligence—and then at the concept of legitimate interest. That is a step forward. Let us perhaps wait and see what they say. We will get more progress with our Crown dependency friends by co-operation and discussion than we will, with respect, by lecturing.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing this debate, and for her consistent and tireless work in tackling the scourge of illicit finance. As she said, the introduction of public registers of beneficial ownership in our country’s offshore financial centres ought not to need debating, and it should have happened many years ago. Yesterday, after seven long years, the Hillsborough families finally got a response from the Government to Bishop Jones’s report, yet it was a response that rejected his key recommendations. This Government have been even more tardy when it comes to delivering on their declared policy of public registers of beneficial ownership.
It has been almost 10 years since the Prime Minister, Lord Cameron, called on our overseas territories and dependencies to raise their transparency standards, and not a lot has happened, as we have heard. After five years, amendments were made to what became the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, requiring territories and dependencies to act. By that time, the Prime Minister had gambled and lost the Brexit referendum, and he had left office, left Parliament and got embroiled in the dubious activities of Lex Greensill, and still nothing had changed.
The case for transparency is clear and unarguable, and the fight against crime and corruption requires it, but we are still no further forward. Lord Cameron has returned to Parliament in a new guise as Foreign Secretary. I hope he will once more be directly responsible for policy in this area, and I hope he will be able to help us make some real and meaningful progress. The public disclosure of company ownership information would facilitate the trailing of money and identity and illicit activity, and deter money laundering, crime and sanctions busting, and it is essential that we make progress.
Labour has repeatedly tried to push the Government to act. Both last year and this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) moved amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which would have required the Government to lay an Order in Council and to make some progress, but the Government defeated them. They continue to say they are doing things while achieving no real outcome that makes a difference.
The facilitating of illicit finance through our overseas territories and Crown dependencies poses a serious threat in a number of ways. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, it deprives the public purse of funds, and it prevents true economic stability. It poses very real threats to our national security, and it affects each and every citizen of this country, be it in underfunded public services, higher than expected property prices, illicit crime or organised crime in our communities. All of that affects each and every one of the constituents of Members up and down the country. The financial cost of global tax evasion, enabled by a lack of transparency in our territories and dependencies, is staggering to contemplate. Tax Justice found that 35% of global tax losses suffered by countries around the world occur in the UK and its network of overseas territories and Crown dependencies. That is a shameful statistic.
The lack of transparency in offshore jurisdictions facilitates myriad other illicit activities at great cost to our country. Companies based in overseas territories have enabled corruption cases to the tune of £250 billion. Notably, an astonishing 92% of those were registered in the British Virgin Islands. For context, £250 billion is more than the whole of the UK’s foreign aid budget for the past 20 years. That money is going unaccounted for, when it could be working for our communities.
With war raging in Europe and the middle east, and contemplating the revelations the House heard earlier about organised attempts by the Russian FSB to interfere in UK elections, it is clear that the threat is growing. The cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee has rightfully called for public registers as a “matter of national security”. Increasingly, I believe that the risk to the UK’s international reputation is growing. Our reputation has already been substantially damaged. It is in the public interest for the Minister to tell us what he is going to do as a matter of urgency to deal with this growing threat.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on securing it.
As Members will know, there are many functions of beneficial ownership, both licit and illicit. Regardless of the legality of the arrangements, it goes without saying that a public register of these beneficial ownerships would play a vital role in combating tax evasion and other such unlawful activities—we can all agree with that. It is the desire of everyone in this House and of the Governments of the overseas territories that we work towards better transparency, to ensure these islands and territories are no longer associated with being tax havens and hotbeds of illegal financial activity. Places, including the overseas territories, do not want to be considered as such. When people from those places travel, their experience is clouded by comments they receive from others about how they harbour terrorist money or are all money launderers. That is simply unfair.
Many of the territories have already demonstrated progress in the fight against money laundering and tax evasion, none more so than the Cayman Islands. People may know that I have some links with the Cayman Islands. I do not have a bank account there, but I have many friends there and I have been involved in environmental matters in the country. The Cayman Government take the fight against illicit finance very seriously. In 2019, they were among eight territories committed to introducing a publicly accessible register by the end of the year. Progress has been made: draft proposals were initially published in 2021 and a consultation began shortly after.
Aside from the implementation of the register, the Cayman Islands have made great strides in navigating the complex intersections of transparency, governance and international standards, and it is worth bringing those to light so that they may serve as an example for other oversea territories and Crown dependencies, and provide Members with some hope that they are playing their part. For example, the Cayman Islands operates tax co-operation agreements with over 100 countries, including participation in the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.
The Cayman Islands follow the common reporting standards—a global standard set by the OECD and advocated by the G20 nations. The progress made by the Cayman Islands has been recognised by the financial action taskforce, which confirmed that its anti-money laundering regime effectively deters and prosecutes financial crimes in the territory, and by His Majesty’s Government for effective implementation of its Russian sanctions taskforce, Operation Hektor. I know that Russian finance is of particular concern to many Members. It is worth noting that Operation Hektor has so involved the deregistration of more than 50 vessels and aircraft and the freezing of accounts worth approximately $8.32 billion and €230.1 million. That goes to show that there are many effective ways in which the overseas territories can tackle illicit finance operating in their jurisdictions.
Back in 2020, Ministers were clear that the introduction of comprehensive public registers would be a considerable ask for many overseas territories, particularly those that do not possess any existing company beneficial ownership register. It is worth pointing out that the Cayman Islands has, since 2017, maintained an electronic register of beneficial ownership information for all corporate and legal entities. Any such arrangement in the islands is verified and updated by authorised corporate service providers, which then pass on the information to UK law enforcement within 24 hours, under the exchange-of-notes agreement established in 2017.
That said, complexities arise with the proviso that public accessibility be at an accepted international standard, particularly among EU member states. As Members are aware, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned, the 2022 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that unrestricted public access to beneficial ownership information is incompatible with the right to private life. We may not be in the European Union any more, but the sentiment of many of those rulings remains. I know that, following that ruling, many territories sought legal and constitutional advice on the impact. Perhaps the Minister could provide his own assessment of the ruling, and tell us how he is working with territories to counteract it and ensure the smooth transition to public registers.
I know that Governments of the overseas territories and dependencies will be listening closely to this debate. I have no doubt of their commitment to providing the transparency needed. I also trust that many Members present, and the Government, will appreciate the work that has already been undertaken.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will call Marie Rimmer and then Meg Hillier. You must sit down by half-past 4, so perhaps you can divide the time between you.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing the debate.
Our country, with its Crown dependencies and overseas territories, is responsible for 35% of global tax loss. The UK tax gap is estimated by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be worth £36 billion. Those billions of pounds could be spent helping our NHS or fixing our schools’ leaking roofs, but sadly, they are instead propping up Putin and his cronies as they try to destroy Ukraine. The past year has put a spotlight on dirty money laundered and hidden here, yet that problem has been around for years. We must act now to ensure that we are not indirectly responsible for horrors continuing to occur by failing to tackle dirty money, be it in London, the British Virgin Islands or one of our other territories. We have a duty to the people of Ukraine to do our bit.
We have heard many times from the Dispatch Box about how much support we are rightly giving to Ukraine, but the Government must press our Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which are the Russians’ laundromat of choice, to do the same. Transparency International has identified 237 cases of corruption enabled by companies based in the overseas territories. Those cases are worth an astonishing £250 billion, which was diverted via rigged procurement, bribery, embezzlement and the unlawful acquisition of state assets. All those cases passed through companies registered in our overseas territories. The presidential family of the Republic of Congo have enriched themselves to the sum of at least £500 million by completing dodgy oil deals through companies based in Anguilla, all while the Congo sits in billions of pounds of debt.
Of all the cases, 92% of those were registered in the British Virgin Islands. The scale of the financial damage caused by those companies is £196 billion, which is greater than the UK’s foreign aid budget over the past 20 years. We in this House often talk about our responsibility to the world and to mankind, and about our duty to help the world’s poorest—that is why we believe in foreign aid—yet monumental sums are being robbed from countries around the world by despots and dictators and then stored in our territories. Our duty to the world requires us to do more to crack down on it. Quite frankly, every time there is a series of leaks—from the Panama papers and the Paradise Papers to the “Cyprus Confidential” dossier—it is an embarrassment to our country, and it is not going away.
As has been set out, one of the most effective ways to crack down on the problem is with public registers of who owns the companies in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. There has been enough talk about cracking down on tax avoidance for decades; it is now time for realistic and pragmatic action for good. Fraud, tax and sanction avoidance, and other economic crime can be cracked down on only if it is possible to follow the money. The Government cannot expect law enforcement to crack down on tax avoidance if it is not given the tools it needs to do it. We can do it and we have said we will do it, so we should get on and do it!
Public registers can also help to restore public faith in the tax system by helping to expose the high levels of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion that we know take place. In the long term, public registers can contribute to creating a fairer and less lopsided tax system. That allows the Government of the day to collect tax effectively, and fairly invest in our public services and infrastructure. Public registers of beneficial ownership are a sensible transparency measure, with broad cross-party support. The Government have repeatedly expressed their support for establishing public registers, but we are still waiting for them to be set up. They were supposed to be set up by the end of 2023. This situation cannot go on. The Foreign Secretary needs to get this over the line. We need to be able to identify who the true owner of offshore wealth is. We need to be able to uphold the law and make sure that tax is paid. We need to remove the veil of secrecy that, sadly, exists in too many of our territories and dependencies.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I have been on this journey with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) since I served on the Public Accounts Committee when she was chairing it—shockingly, it is now 10 years on from that. We began to deal with some of the domestic issues with companies that had international footprints—the large companies such as Starbucks, which we had before the Committee. I remember that rollercoaster ride and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on that work.
Let us be clear what the impact of the lack of beneficial ownership registers is. Others have touched on security, but I wish to talk about the tax that is lost. We are in a cost of living crisis, there is a huge pressure on the Exchequer and we have an election looming, with each party that is likely to be in government wanting to make promises to the electorate. This money is being hidden away without people knowing where it is and that is definitely having an impact on the tax take; it is an absolute opportunity for tax avoidance and tax evasion, in particular, and it is key that we have this register. In my constituency, a lot of properties are owned by offshore companies, some of them in the overseas territories, and it is impossible for the residents of those buildings to know who their landlord truly is; they face an address with no name attached, and no responses come from those landlords. It is against natural justice for people who have their homes owned by others as finance vehicles not to be able to have access to them.
We need to make sure that this issue is dealt with, because if we do not deal with the issues of money laundering and economic crime across the piece, and we deal with them only domestically, without a strategy for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, there is a risk that the problem will simply move, rather than be resolved. People with money and advice about where to hide it, if they are minded to hide it, will find ways to do that where those ways exist. This loophole needs to be closed and we have a prime opportunity, with the Foreign Secretary, the very person who, as Prime Minister, was backing that a decade ago, now sitting in the House of Lords and at the Cabinet table. He could be driving this, so I urge the Minister to speak up for his new boss. I hope that the Minister has been given the go-ahead to give us some comfort today that this issue will finally be revolved. There are only a few weeks until the end of the year, and I hope he can give us some comfort on the timeline.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for your co-operation. For the first wind-up, I call Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Let me begin by sharing the disappointment of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that this debate is necessary at all. It is incredibly disappointing that the target the UK Government had of ensuring that by December 2023—the month we are in—public registers were set up for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies looks set to be missed. This debate ought to start, as in fairness it has, from a fundamental premise: public registers of beneficial ownership are a vital tool in helping to identify and therefore reduce financial crime, and to increase financial transparency.
The simple fact of knowing who owns what, who benefits from it, and where the moneys have flowed from and are flowing to all helps to identify and tackle crime of all sorts, including corruption, drug trafficking and people trafficking, as well as domestic and international tax evasion and tax avoidance. Being able to get this under control would be massively to our collective benefit, and not just from a reputational point of view, because the revenues, moneys and assets that are concealed in this way can be used to fund activities that are detrimental to national security. It would also be massively to the benefit of the rest of the world to close down options for kleptocratic “businesspeople” or politicians to strip assets from their countries and squirrel them away in untransparent jurisdictions to enrich their lifestyles. That is clearly not a good thing, and the people of those countries suffer as a consequence of that permissive environment.
Registers are a necessary but insufficient step, and there is a lot of work to be done, not just on this issue. We have heard about London’s unenviable reputation as the laundromat—I think that term was used—for some of the world’s dirty money. I remember participating in a debate earlier in my parliamentary career about similar issues that were caused by London being the laundromat for reputational issues, through the prevalence of libel tourism, the ability to use SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—and the prevalence of public affairs and public relations agencies that are willing to accept money to do such things. There is much work to be done to clean up the United Kingdom’s act in that sense.
Although the UK Government introduced a register of beneficial ownership in 2016 and have encouraged the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to follow suit, they have not done that, so far at least, despite voluntarily agreeing to do so. That is despite the UK Government using the sweet persuasion of publishing a draft Order in Council as long ago as in 2020 to require them to do so and giving them a deadline of this month, which now seems almost certain to be missed.
This is the fundamental point: if the UK wishes to seek leadership on this issue, it cannot be taken seriously as a world leader on financial transparency if it does not do more, and is not seen to do more, to stop overseas territories being used as havens for individuals to evade their obligations.
It matters very much that that should happen. More than half of the shell companies exposed in the Panama papers were incorporated in UK tax havens. More than two thirds of the companies analysed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists from the Panama papers leaks were found to be registered in the British Virgin Islands. The UK and its overseas jurisdictions are collectively responsible, through that permissiveness, for costing the rest of the world nearly $90 billion in lost tax each year by enabling non-residents to hide their finances and avoid tax. As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) highlighted, Tax Justice UK estimates that the UK and its network of overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for some 35% of global tax losses suffered by countries around the world.
The impact that clamping down on this problem could have, not just on the public good for the UK but in many other countries around the world, is highly significant. We are often invited to believe that the biggest threat to our quality of life—[Interruption.] Excuse me. [Interruption.] Thank you very much.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Mr Doughty for providing a cup of water, in the spirit of the Lib-Lab pact.
Richard Thomson
Lib? Well, it shows that there is perhaps a future for progressive alliances of one kind or another, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Maybe on cups of water.
Richard Thomson
Yes.
We are regularly invited to believe that the greatest threat to our public services and our quality of life comes not from a lack of resources, but from immigration. Indeed, the governing party is tearing itself to bits today over the difficulties that it has set itself in pursuit of the votes of those they believe might be influenced by such sentiments. I cannot help but feel that we would be in a significantly better place if only the Government put half the effort into clamping down on the opportunities for tax avoidance, evasion and lack of transparency as they put into telling us that there is a problem about boats.
The three countries that ranked highest in the corporate tax haven index 2021, compiled by the Tax Justice Network, were the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, which is not an accolade to be proud of. Where a score of 100 is the most permissive system and zero is the least permissive, the UK itself scored a less than clever 69. Greece scored 46.4, but seven of the eight territories that scored a perfect 100— I use the word “perfect” advisedly—are British overseas territories or Crown dependencies.
The UK Government and the territory Governments held a joint ministerial council in November, but there has been no statement. Will the Minister update the House on the progress that has been made? How will that affect the December deadline?
In 2014 the Foreign Secretary, who was then Prime Minister, made a number of strides forward in addressing this issue. We on the Opposition Benches are struggling with many things, including my voice, but we can see the benefits that come from Lord Cameron’s appointment. On these matters, we very much hope that he is able to pick up where he left off when he demitted office as Prime Minister.
If not the clock, certainly my voice is telling me that it is probably time to wind things up.
Dame Angela Eagle
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that ensuring we have open and transparent registers of beneficial ownership is only the first step in dealing with what is a very well established, very difficult and growing threat?
Richard Thomson
In short, yes, I do. The registers are necessary, although they are not sufficient by themselves. Clearly, a great deal more work needs to be done.
I commend the right hon. Member for Barking for her clarity and leadership on this issue. Next time we discuss it, I hope we will be discussing how the registers are being implemented and the benefits they bring.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a hugely useful debate on the implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing this crucial debate and for her tireless and unrelenting work on combating illicit finance, fighting for transparency and opposing corruption. As shadow Minister for the overseas territories, I draw attention to my declaration of interest.
We have heard some important, passionate speeches, not least from my right hon. Friend. The campaigning motivations behind her speech have been clear and transparent in what she has attempted to achieve over many years, as many hon. and right hon. colleagues have reflected on.
Important points have been made, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), on one of the key reasons for transparency, which is understanding who owns buildings, for example, and in what way they own them. I have had the same experience in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency, with many residents affected by fire and building safety issues having difficulty establishing who is the freeholder and how the ownership is structured.
In an equally passionate speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) clearly exposed why this matters in so many different regards. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch also explained the importance to the public purse of dealing with these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made an equally passionate speech about why this matters to our efforts against Russia and its illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, and in relation to our responsibilities elsewhere in the world, including in Africa and many other locations.
We heard strong comments from the Father of the House, as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), also made important points on the constitutional position of the Crown dependencies. I am no expert on the different legal opinions that have been expressed on that matter, but I have certainly had it put to me clearly by representatives of the Crown dependencies.
As Labour’s shadow Minister for the UK overseas territories, I want to begin by reiterating our unwavering commitment to each member of our global British family, their sovereignty and their right to self-determination. We are committed to a respectful but candid, productive but principled partnership between the UK and each territory, and the same is true in many respects of the Crown dependencies. It was a pleasure to meet the premiers, Chief Ministers and representatives of each overseas territory earlier this month during the week of the joint ministerial council and to hear their insights, concerns and perspectives on issues from security to sovereignty, climate change to infrastructure, and constitutional relationships to this very issue of financial services and beneficial ownership.
As I have said in previous debates, we need to be careful that we do not pursue misconceptions about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Each territory and dependency is distinctive and unique. Many of the overseas territories do not engage in financial services, and this debate applies less to them. We must also recognise that steps have been taken and that there has been progress in some areas. Indeed, reference was made to the public register of beneficial ownership in Gibraltar, to the exchange of notes agreement, which has existed since 2017, and to a number of other steps that have been taken. I also want to acknowledge— I have discussed this with them over the last two years—that a number of the overseas territories, and indeed Crown dependencies, have been integral to efforts on freezing Russian state and other assets since the onset of Putin’s illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine.
However, Labour believes that being part of the British family comes with clear responsibilities. We share common values, obligations and principles, including a robust commitment to democracy, the rule of law and liberty, and the protection of human rights. We also believe in the advancement of good governance and in ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation, which of course includes transparency in financial services.
The 2018 Foreign Affairs Committee report was referred to, and I note the comments in it and comments made today about the interdependence between proper regulation and transparency and our wider national security and foreign policy objectives. That is why we must respond to the calls made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and many others today for us to tackle these issues by urgently bringing about the full implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s overseas territories and, I hope, Crown dependencies.
Sadly, action on economic crime has been held back by years of Conservative delay and dithering. As has been referenced, we were first promised a register of overseas ownership by Lord Cameron in 2016, and it beggars belief that we are still debating how it should be implemented.
Section 51 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 required the Secretary of State
“no later than 31 December 2020”
to
“prepare a draft Order in Council requiring the government of any British Overseas Territory that has not introduced a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies within its jurisdiction to do so.”
Yet here we are in 2023.
We should also remember the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which was passed as emergency legislation in the light of the situation in Ukraine and the need to sanction Russian state entities and others involved in the invasion. Its primary purpose included setting up a register of overseas entities and their beneficial owners and requiring overseas entities that own land in the UK to register in certain circumstances.
We have repeatedly been clear that overseas entities should not be able to hide behind trusts, and it is important to explain why that matters. A recent article by Advani, Poux and Summers from the London School of Economics tells us that
“63 per cent of cases where beneficial ownership is not publicly reported”
involve “the use of trusts”. It also states:
“The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are…heavily implicated here. Over 85 per cent of all trust arrangements come from…Jersey (32 per cent), Guernsey (25 per cent), British Virgin Islands (17 per cent) and Isle of Man (11 per cent).”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only highlighted why we need to see who owns what and in a way that is transparent and publicly available.
We have made clear time and again the need to bring forward much-needed reforms to Companies House, alongside a review of the register of overseas entities, to ensure that the right balance is struck between privacy and the public interest, including our ability, for example, to apply sanctions effectively. Here in the UK I am afraid we have been playing a game of catch-up. We need to move forward in that respect, working co-operatively with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, but taking action if it has not yet been forthcoming.
The views of the British public are clear. The results of a poll for the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition show that 72% of the British public believe that the Government should take more responsibility, working with offshore financial centres to tackle money laundering and tax evasion. That will require the opening up of corporate registries to public scrutiny, and for the end-of-year deadline to be met as a matter of priority. We are seeing, as never before, a confluence of the need to ensure good governance across financial centres and our own national security.
Let me ask the Minister some questions. First, will the deadline be met—yes or no? If not, what do the FCDO and the wider Government consider to be a reasonable deadline, and what will be done to meet it? Can he clarify the position in relation to the Crown dependencies in particular, given the comments that have been made today? Obviously I have seen the statement that they have made about coming forward with a public commitment—I think that was the phrase—in relation to their approach to access to information on registers of beneficial ownership by the end of December 2023, to replace the 2019 commitment.
I was pleased to read the Joint Ministerial Council’s communiqué, which said that
“the Overseas Territories and the UK…will be establishing a technical working group on beneficial ownership…and…the implementation of publicly accessible registers”.
What is happening about that, and what support is being given to smaller territories, in particular, to enable them to make progress? What is the group doing, and how will it move forward and actually deliver results? After the November JMC, the Minister pledged that he would report to Parliament before the recess on the progress toward the deadline. Is today that day, and can he provide a precise timeline? Could he also provide an update on the status of the draft Order in Council and the circumstances in which it would be invoked? Will he tell us what percentage of business covered by the 2017 exchange of notes agreement is being covered now? I understand that in 2019 it was 87%; is it now 100%, as promised? At what speed is the information being exchanged? The Cayman Islands has told us that it does it within 24 hours; is that timeline the same in every single territory?
I hope that the Minister can answer those questions today. We want to see progress as a matter of urgency, as part of a respectful, constructive but principled relationship with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If the Minister can sit down by about two minutes to 5, that will allow Dame Margaret Hodge to sum up the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not had a chance to say this in person until now, but thank you for your Christmas card. We know that Christmas is coming, and it is always a joy.
I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing the debate. I pay tribute to her for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, and for her tireless campaigning on this vital issue over many years. She is respected on both sides of the House for the work that she does. This debate has involved some of the most serious and seasoned parliamentarians, respected by me and, indeed, respected throughout the House—four dames, two knights and counting. A heavyweight group of people have made a serious contribution—and I do not say that lightly; the calculation was made by one of my colleagues.
I am also grateful for the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is probably soon to be right hon. or something, what with all the stuff that is going on. He leads on the Crown dependencies in the Ministry of Justice and takes a keen interest in the issues affecting them and the overseas territories. Another of the dames is also present on the Front Bench: my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dame Amanda Milling), a very well-respected former overseas territories Minister.
Illicit finance is an active and growing threat to the national security of the UK family. There we have it—it has been said on both sides of the House. I am not sure we need to say much more on that particular point, but it is serious. As set out earlier this year in the UK’s second economic crime plan, illicit finance fuels serious and organised crime, threatens our institutions and enables kleptocrats to establish a financial foothold.
I recognise the important work of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary—just to reassure the right hon. Member for Barking, I can feel the strength of his opinion on my shoulders right now. That also goes for my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is the development Minister and Minister for Africa, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who is the Security Minister. I think they are well known to the right hon. Lady, and the strength of their opinions is known to her and the House, and to many others too.
This is an important and serious debate. The UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies have a history of working together as partners to strengthen our economic defences against illicit finance. Publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership are an essential tool in that fight. We want greater transparency, and we are working hard to deliver it. As has been said, the UK implemented our own register in 2016, the first of its kind in the world. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 set out Parliament’s desire for the overseas territories to introduce registers, and in response, all the inhabited territories and Crown dependencies made public commitments to do so.
The UK welcomed those commitments as demonstrations of our joint desire to meet the highest standards in tackling illicit finance. In 2020 we set out in written ministerial statements our expectation that the territories and dependencies would implement registers by the end of this year, and included a draft Order in Council. We then provided technical assistance and support, and we saw OTs make significant progress. For instance, BVI was able to pass appropriate primary legislation in 2022 and the Cayman Islands in 2023, and the CDs have also taken a set of preparatory steps—[Interruption.] Bless you—it could be catching.
It will not have escaped Members’ notice that only Gibraltar currently has an operational register, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. The other thing is that, as those who are following the calendar have noted, there are only three weeks to go until the end of 2023.
Let me be absolutely clear: this is not where the UK Government wanted the OTs and CDs to be. In November last year the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling pertaining to publicly accessible registers, which changed the international context. The judgment found that an EU requirement to implement publicly accessible registers was contrary to the EU charter of fundamental rights. The UK was, however, satisfied with the lawfulness of our own publicly accessible register, and we continue to believe that CDs and OTs could legally implement public registers of their own. Not only that, but no fewer than 14 EU member states allow public access to their beneficial ownership registers even after the November court ruling. That should provide a direction of travel and a sense of security.
We have been in intense discussions with the territories and dependencies since spring—it has been a huge priority for me in recent months, since my appointment as Minister for the overseas territories—to set out the rationale for our view that the registers can indeed be fully implemented in line with the privacy rights that apply to each of them. Montserrat, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn have confirmed that they are continuing to implement theirs, following in the footsteps of Gibraltar, which introduced its own in 2020. However, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands, along with the Crown dependencies, continue to have concerns in the light of the court ruling.
Given the differing views on the ruling, we are working together to find ways to make positive progress, including by discussing an interim step that would make significant progress towards commitments to improve corporate transparency: the implementation, next year, of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter. That would allow access to beneficial ownership information for members of the public with a legitimate interest, such as media and civil society organisations involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering. It would also bring the territories and dependencies in line with the EU, as the European court judgment notes that EU member states must continue to enable access to those with legitimate interest.
David Rutley
I will make one more point and then I will gladly give way.
The right hon. Member for Barking raised an issue regarding requests by Transparency International to HMRC. I cannot comment on individual cases, but if she writes to me, I will follow it up. To be clear, the Government’s policy is that, by definition, legitimate interest should include civil society organisations such as Transparency International.
Dame Angela Eagle
The legitimate public interest filter, as the Minister calls it, stands or falls on how “legitimate public interest” is defined. At the moment, it appears to be far too narrowly defined, which undermines the purpose of the transparency. Will he take into account the fact that the filter, as it exists, does not let any light through and is rendering the openness of the list moot?
David Rutley
That is not the intention. We want the light to shine on these issues. That will involve media and non-governmental organisations too. I can give the hon. Lady that reassurance.
Sir Julian Lewis
Surely, the problem is that if the Minister were correct and any legitimate media could make an inquiry, any citizen with a real interest could go to the media and get the information that way. That must be known in opting for the filter, so presumably its purpose is only to be obstructive and to create legal barriers.
David Rutley
The filter is fundamental to the EU’s plans. We want this to be important in and of itself, and also a step on the journey to having full beneficial ownership registers. That remains the case.
I am conscious of time, but I want to assure the House that we are absolutely clear that we want to take this interim step further. We will continue active discussions. The majority of the five territories that we have talked about will sign up to the legitimate interest access filter, and we will continue to have discussions with other jurisdictions that need to do more. As I set out in my response to the right hon. Member for Barking, I intend to update the House with full details before Christmas, and I will lay a written ministerial statement on the outcomes of the ongoing negotiations.
We are continuing further productive discussions with Crown dependencies. In line with the overseas territories, we are recognising our different legal positions following the court judgment, but we are making our expectation clear that the registers need to be implemented during the course of next year. Again, the Home Office will update Parliament before the recess on the outcomes of those serious discussions, as we want to move forward.
In conclusion, I would like to give our great friends in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies the message that we are determined and keen to achieve this important goal for us all. The train is leaving the station. We know the direction of travel. It is time for all our friends in the overseas territories and CDs to get on board. We will do all we can to support them, and it remains a clear priority.
Dame Margaret Hodge
What has been great about this debate is that we mostly agree across the House. That has been the basis on which we have taken action down the years, and I am grateful for that. I want to acknowledge the teamwork that has gone on. The right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) both played a key role in pursuing transparency in the run-up to 2018 and beyond, before they became Ministers. Transparency is just one tool in the fight against economic crime, corruption, and tax evasion and avoidance.
I thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) both mentioned the eye-watering sums of money that are lost to the legitimate system through tax avoidance, tax evasion and other ways.
May I thank everybody and finally say—
Violent Crime and Antisocial Behaviour: Carshalton and Wallington
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
May I begin by expressing how devastated I am that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not here to intervene on me? I have heard that that is a staple of Adjournment debates, but I fear that I will miss out on the opportunity. Nevertheless, I will soldier on and do what I can.
I would like to address a growing concern in our community of Carshalton and Wallington: violent crime and antisocial behaviour, which demands our attention and is a huge concern to my constituents. I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is the Minister responding today, because he will know about many of these issues already. I am also delighted to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who will know full well about some of the issues I plan to raise. I will start with a few recent examples of violent crime and antisocial behaviour in the constituency.
On 3 October, a man was fatally stabbed in Roundshaw, just a week after a tragic stabbing in the neighbouring borough of Croydon, which I know the Minister is aware of as the constituency MP for the area. That followed a number of recent attacks, not all of which took place in my constituency—some occurred in neighbouring Croydon, including the tragic case of a 15-year-old girl—involving several of the many teenagers who have been killed on London’s streets in 2023. Each one is a tragedy.
In Wallington, a man sustained a thankfully non-life-threatening chest wound and a woman suffered a hand injury in a knife attack on Birchwood Avenue last Saturday. I thank the police for their work. They always respond with the utmost professionalism, and they do a fantastic job. I also thank the air ambulance and NHS staff who cared for the victims. However, such incidents are of concern, because the London borough of Sutton, which includes Carshalton and Wallington, has long enjoyed a reputation as one of the safest in London, often competing with Richmond. Violent crime is not something we are necessarily used to, so seeing it happen on our streets over the course of the last few months is of real concern.
Like the inboxes of many of my colleagues across the capital, my inbox is often full of correspondence from residents, concerned parents and others who feel vulnerable and unsafe because of the crime that is happening in their area. It must not be allowed to continue. I vividly remember one constituent writing to me after the attack in Roundshaw to say that she did not feel safe enough to put her bins out in the dark. Another’s teenage daughter did not want to leave the house for fear of being attacked. We must not let that become the new normal in London—or anywhere, for that matter.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. We have had the sad news of the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old boy outside Sutton station, and a 15-year-old was recently killed in the Minister’s town of Croydon. Not only do we have to lean into knife crime, which is sometimes imported into Sutton; we also need to make sure that we can bring down the fear of crime. Often it is imported by gangs, but it is really important that we can reassure people that the police are there and that we have a holistic view of knife crime in Sutton.
Elliot Colburn
Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. He is absolutely right about the need to bring down the fear of crime and introducing measures to do that, and I would like to hear more from the Minister about what steps the Home Office is taking in that respect. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about providing reassurance, and I will go into that in a bit more detail. I pay tribute to him for his time as one of the longest-serving Ministers for London, and for the work he did in this space. He has been a fantastic champion of his constituency and the capital, and he is a great loss to the Government, but I am pleased to have him back on the Back Benches helping me to advocate for our fantastic borough of Sutton.
On 30 October—just a few weeks ago—a 15-year-old boy who was minding his own business was approached by another teenage boy, who led him to a block of flats, where three other teenagers armed with knives awaited. The young victim was robbed of his phone. That incident was one of many that underscores the vulnerability of our youth and the audacity of those who will prey on our children. Our children’s minds should be free to explore and not be occupied with threats to their lives, but, sadly, that was not an isolated incident.
Our community has witnessed rises in house break-ins and people trying car doors. One of the most common things that I see on social media is Ring doorbell footage of people trying car doors or front doors late at night in our community. That really makes people feel violated and scared in their own homes, and that cannot be right. These doorbell cameras deter crime in their own right. I often encourage my constituents to get them, because thankfully I have seen many videos where someone has clocked a Ring doorbell camera and turned away from the house. That is fantastic, but it is awful how often such footage comes up on social media.
Another fairly distressing incident was that of a four- year-old child who was slapped at a bus stop just a couple of weeks ago. Though details are still emerging, and I do not want to prejudice investigations in any of the cases I raise, that incident underscores the urgency with which we must tackle the root causes of knife crime and antisocial behaviour in our community. No child, no parent and no person should be left with the weight of that trauma or left feeling unsafe in their own community.
In our area in the last year, thefts are up by 31%, sexual offences are up by 43% and robberies are up by 58%. Those statistics are alarming—and more so because they are not part of a national trend. Across the whole of the United Kingdom, crime has fallen since 2010—the Minister will want to expand on the Government’s record in bringing crime down—so we must ask ourselves why it is only within London that we do not see that trend being played out. Some responsibility—in fact, I would argue quite a lot—must rest on the shoulders of the police and crime commissioner for London, who also happens to be the Mayor of London.
We have seen London benefit from the massive increase in police officers—we met our manifesto commitment of 20,000 new police officers, and 3,666 of those are working on the streets of London—yet we see this worrying trend with crime levels. Even just this past week, the Mayor of London was caught out misleading Londoners on statistics about crime in London. He may not be prepared to put the work in and would rather spend his time jetting off around the world trying to sell his book, legalise weed or whatever it is he is interested in doing other than getting on with his job. However, we cannot leave criminals to take over the streets of London, so I would really like to understand what work the Home Office is doing with the Metropolitan police to recapture the trust of Londoners and get on with the job of deterring and catching criminals, ensuring that our constituents—those of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, and mine—are kept safe.
I absolutely welcome the increase in police numbers, but we face unique challenges on the fringes of London, from which a significant number of officers are regularly transferred away for major events in central London, where help is needed for policing, leaving only a minimal presence in outer London. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister on the work that he is doing in the Home Office with the Metropolitan police to address that promptly so that when big events happen in central London, neighbourhood and local policing in outer London does not suffer.
Collaboration between the police and local communities is also paramount, and policing is only half the battle. I absolutely want to continue advocating for an increased police presence. We all want to see bobbies back on the beat, and it is great to see those new police officers getting out there in our communities and doing just that, but we must also tackle the causes of crime and antisocial behaviour along the way. Education is a crucial step in doing that. We have seen how that has worked in other parts of the world, and even here in the United Kingdom. Glasgow was once the most violent city in the whole of Europe. It took a different approach to violent crime, and has turned that reputation around and driven down that number.
In London, we were promised a violence reduction unit that would tackle knife crime in a similar way, yet we have seen no results from that violence reduction unit. There is little transparency about who sits on it and what work they are doing, whether they have met, what they have spoken about and when they meet. The violence reduction unit for London has not achieved anything because, as I said earlier, London is not following the national trend for crime at the moment.
The challenges that we face are daunting, but the spirit of our community is always resilient. We must do all that we can to tackle violent crime and anti-social behaviour and reclaim the safety and security of my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington, and across the whole of London. We need to ensure that we have a constant and visible police presence on the streets of Sutton. We need to ensure that people are aware of the consequences of criminal activity, and educate them to prevent their turning to crime in the first place, particularly our young people. I will not stop raising these issues, and nor will my hon. Friends, because until no one lives in fear, our community thrives, and people value and protect each other, we will not have achieved our aims.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate, and on his extremely powerful and eloquent speech, which furthers his tireless campaigning on this issue, often in partnership with his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has contributed already this evening.
This is an incredibly important topic. I say that not just as the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, but as the constituency neighbour, on the other side, of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I am a fellow south-London MP, so I, too, see at first hand the effect of knife crime and serious violence on our communities. In particular in Croydon, but I think across all of south London, we felt for the family of Elianne Andam, the 15-year-old girl who was brutally murdered on the morning of 27 September. The whole community was incredibly moved and mourns her loss. I went to her funeral with many others. About 1,000 people attended that funeral, just a few weeks ago. It had a profound impact on the whole borough, and more widely across south London, and we all need to redouble our efforts to end the scourge of knife crime and serious violence.
Although serious violence is down by 25% over the last four years, and even though homicide has reduced this year compared with last year and is lower than it was in 2010, every single death, and every single incident of serious violence or homicide, is an individual tragedy, and we need to do more to get the figures down even further. On the Government’s work in this area, we have delivered record police numbers, with 149,566 across England and Wales—more police than we have ever had before. That includes more police than we have ever had across London, in the Metropolitan Police.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as London’s police and crime commissioner, has been pretty deficient in managing the police force. Although there are record numbers in the Met thanks to Government funding, there could have been an extra 1,089 officers. Government funding was available to recruit those officers to the Met, but the Mayor of London, thanks to his ineptitude, failed to recruit them. Knife crime in London has also increased on his watch. He shamefully made a claim to the contrary and was publicly rebuked by the Office for National Statistics for making misleading claims. Clearly, the Mayor of London needs to do a lot more to tackle knife crime.
Let me set out some of the things that the Government are doing in this area. One of them is funding violence reduction units across the 20 police force areas where violent crime is the most serious. Those violence reduction units, which are managed by the police and crime commissioners but are funded by the Government, are designed to make early interventions to identify people—often young people—who are on the wrong track and try to put them on the right track, whether that is through educational interventions, social services work, sporting activity or whatever it may be. We intend to continue supporting and expanding the work of violence reduction units, supported by the Youth Endowment Fund, which has received £200 million of Government money.
We also want to stop the supply of knives getting on to our streets in the first place. That is why we are legislating, both through the Criminal Justice Bill and through secondary legislation, to: ban certain zombie knives and machetes that are currently legal; double the sentence for selling knives to under-18s; and give the police additional powers to seize legal knives that are held in private if they think those knives are going to be used for criminal purposes. As for selling knives online, the Online Safety Act 2023—which received Royal Assent just a few weeks ago—will, when fully in force, require online marketplaces such as Facebook Marketplace to proactively prevent the sale of illegal knives online, again choking off the supply of those knives into our communities.
Elliot Colburn
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to three people? First, Ray and Vi Donovan are an incredible couple living in my constituency who helped bring a knife bin to the centre of Sutton—some truly horrific things have been found in that knife bin, but thankfully, they are off the streets. Secondly, as the Minister mentioned the Online Safety Act, will he join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who was the Minister who took that Act through Parliament in its final stages and managed to secure that important measure to stop knives being sold?
Chris Philp
I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his constituents and their work on the knife bin—we need to have more of those around—and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam did indeed take the Online Safety Bill through its concluding stages in the House of Commons. I was involved in an earlier stage of that Bill’s passage, but he was the Minister who, after a number of years and a number of Ministers, got it over the line.
It is also important to take action on the streets, and although it sometimes attracts controversy, stop and search is an important way of getting knives off our streets. Each month, the Metropolitan police takes about 400 knives off the street through stop and search, which is an important part of the police’s arsenal when done lawfully and respectfully. I would like to see the police be more proactive, using stop and search more—using it more confidently and more widely—to get those knives off the street. Some people raise concerns about disproportionality, but if we look at the success rate for finding knives or drugs on those people who are stopped and searched, the percentage of stop and searches resulting in a find of knives or drugs—which is typically between 25% and 28%—is virtually exactly the same across all ethnic groups. That suggests that allegations that the police are behaving unfairly are without foundation, so I would like to see stop and search used more.
The Home Office is also investing in the development of technology that will be able to covertly scan for knives as people walk down the street. That technology is a year or so away from being deployable, but it is something we are investing in, and it is something I would like to see deployed on our streets. We are also investing in hotspot patrolling: through a project called Grip, hotspot patrols take place in areas where serious violence is a particular problem. We are also running antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols in some force areas. Those hotspot patrols will be rolled out across the whole country from next April—we found that where they take place, antisocial behaviour and serious violence drop noticeably, so we are going to be increasing funding for hotspot patrols across the country from April.
Finally, I draw the House’s attention to the importance of catching perpetrators, and of using technology to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned the availability of CCTV footage these days: a lot of images are now available, whether that is CCTV footage from shops or local authorities, Ring doorbells in people’s houses, dashcam footage or footage taken on mobile phones. The facial recognition algorithm that the police can run, which takes an image of a criminal committing a crime from any of those things—CCTV, mobile phones and so on—and runs it through the police database, can now produce remarkably accurate matches even when the image is not particularly clear. I therefore urge all police forces to redouble their efforts to always run those images through the police national database and to do the facial recognition search. The evidence so far suggests that many perpetrators who would previously not have been caught now can be caught using retrospective facial recognition, which is what I have described.
I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for securing this debate. It is a really important topic not just in south London or London more widely, but across the whole country. A lot of progress has been made, but there is more to do. Every single injury or death is a tragedy and all of us in Parliament and in Government must work together with the police and others to ensure that we do everything humanly possible to end the scourge of knife crime, which is far too frequent at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Media Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 7th December 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 December 2023 - (7 Dec 2023)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Clauses 33 to 36 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I will speak to clause 32, and the other clauses about S4C. I welcome the clauses, as do many people in Wales. They arise from the 2018 review carried out by Euryn Ogwen Williams, one of the great figures of television in Wales for many years. I expected an avalanche of complaints, possible amendments and new clauses from my compatriots; however, I am afraid that there is complete silence from them, so I will speak fairly briefly—perhaps to the relief of some members of the Committee. That silence is perhaps a measure of people’s qualified satisfaction with the channel, and is due to it being such a normal part of life. It has been normalised, and is no longer the matter of dispute that it was when I was a student, many years ago, campaigning in its favour. Having been a permanent Member of the Opposition in this place for the last 22 years, I am in the rather strange position of agreeing with the Government and supporting a Government Bill; it is a very peculiar feeling.
I come back to the S4C clauses—I may slip into calling it ès-pedwar-èc, which is what it is usually called in Wales. I was looking for an explanation from outside broadcast television. I know quite a bit about language planning, and there are two principles there that may help us to understand what is happening: the principles of normalisation and institutionalisation. Normalisation is just that—making something that was at one point new, novel and a subject of dispute unremarkable. As I said, I think that is what has happened to an extent with S4C.
The other principle is institutionalisation—that is, when someone switches the machine on in Wales, the output comes out bilingually, or in one language or the other. That process has happened through a great number of public institutions in Wales. Hon. Members may have seen lobbying or advertising material from public bodies and third-sector bodies in Wales that has .cymru at the end. Some time ago, when I chaired the language committee of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, I had a leaflet through the post from the office in London, and it was bilingual. I phoned the staff up in Cardiff and asked, “Is this your work?” They said, “No, what is it?” I said, “It was nothing to do with me either.” When we checked, we found that the machine had just produced it in Welsh, because now the process was institutionalised.
That is one way of seeing what is happening to S4C; it is now being treated as any other public service broadcaster. That is as it should be—but, of course, S4C is a special case. I am not pleading any special rights for S4C, but it is the only Welsh language television broadcaster in the universe, I suppose, if I might possibly venture to say so. Hon. and right hon. Members can, if they choose, switch to Sky, Channel 4, ITV or perhaps even GB News—who knows?—but no such facility is available to Welsh speakers. S4C has a specific and very special place in cultural and democratic life in Wales. It is 40 years old. I am happy to say that it was established by a Conservative Government—by Mrs Thatcher’s Government—40 years ago. Eventually, she could not resist a deputation made up of a Labour party grandee, the Archbishop of Wales and a senior ex-civil servant, who told her that, unfortunately, she had to produce a Welsh language channel. Apparently, she said, “Do I have to?” They said, “I’m afraid you do, Prime Minister,” and she did.
Those were some points about S4C as a special case. I welcome the removal of the geographical restriction on S4C. There are S4C viewers outside Wales—perhaps quite a lot of them, as I said this morning; who knows? They can now much more easily access the channel’s digital and online services. Bringing S4C in line with other public service broadcasters is welcome. It must be put on a par with larger broadcasters, because it provides the same sort of service: it is a generic broadcaster that produces anything from game shows to gardening programmes, but in the medium of Welsh.
On Tuesday, I think, I spoke about the demography of the language, and why that was relevant. The conventional way of thinking about minority languages is that they are the language of the old people, and young people modernise and speak the other language. For instance, I have Polish friends whose grandparents spoke Polish when they escaped communism after the war. The grandchildren do not speak it at all, and the parents occupy some sort of intermediate space. Paradoxically, the Welsh-speaking population is getting younger; young people are learning the language. People of my generation, who were not taught Welsh in the ’60s, are still about—language change takes a very long time—and the proportion of older people who speak Welsh, about a fifth, is much lower than the proportion of younger people who speak Welsh, which is about a third.
That leads me to mention, with some pride, S4C’s provision for children, including mine. There is a dedicated service called “Cyw”, which means chicken, chick or young person. It produces all kinds of content for children in the medium of Welsh. It has its own YouTube channel. It has roadshows, books, badges, balloons and biros—the whole lot. It is extremely popular. Allowing S4C wider prominence will allow even more children to absorb the language in an easily accessible way—by seeing it on telly, absorbing it as they do English. I see that with my children, who were monoglot Welsh speakers until they were about five or six, and are now thoroughly bilingual.
In the ’60s, living in west Wales, I had the pleasure and advantage of accessing Raidió Teilifís Éireann; we could watch Irish television as well as the BBC. There was no ITV available at the time. On RTÉ, we could see American shows much sooner than they appeared on the BBC; the Irish had a certain advantage. That is an early example of something that came up this morning: the value of choice. People these days can choose what they like; we could choose BBC Wales or RTÉ. I sometimes think that watching RTÉ as a child accounts for my accent. Who knows?
Moving quickly on, clause 33, which concerns the board, puts in place the recommendations of the 2018 review. A shadow board has been operating for some time, and I think it seems to be trouble-free. Clause 34 is on accounts and audit. The Comptroller and Auditor General is already the BBC’s external auditor, and there are no issues with that also being the case for S4C; it perhaps normalises its position as a PSB like any other.
Finally, the possibly more worrying—or possibly not—clause 35 changes the previously fixed approach in which the BBC was required to provide at least 10 hours of programmes in Welsh per week to S4C. It allows for alternative arrangements. The contribution of the BBC is highly valued and of a high standard. It produces the news and various other things, including what I think is the longest running soap opera in the universe. “Pobol y Cwm” has been going for a very long time and has a devoted audience, not only in Wales but slightly beyond the border.
The worry is that replacing statutory provision with an agreement that requires a high degree of trust might not work. That was tested in the past, when the licence fee was cut substantially and the funding for S4C was cut substantially. The BBC’s provision, which was set in law, was very much valued. One wonders what will happen if the BBC has further cuts—who knows? Without the 10-hour arrangement, will those cuts be knocked on to S4C?
However, one of the outstanding successful features of S4C is that it obtains programming from more than 50 independent companies, many of which are located in my constituency. People are occasionally slightly surprised when they ask me where I represent and I say, “I represent Arfon, and the main industries in Arfon are agriculture, tourism, the production of blood-testing machines and television programmes.” That is considered slightly peculiar for what is seen by some people as the back of beyond—that depends on where you start from, of course; it could also be said about London. S4C obtains much of its programming from those companies, and that is highly valued.
All I am really asking for is any observations that the Minister might have about the danger for S4C of cuts to the BBC’s provision. Otherwise, I am very glad to support these clauses.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
I am grateful to Opposition Members for their general support for these clauses. The hon. Member for Arfon has taken us through the history of S4C, and he is right to say that it now has widespread acceptance and has become part of the institutional landscape. There is only one part of what he said that I would question: having worked as political secretary to Margaret Thatcher for five years before I entered this place, I can assure him that she would not have done anything unless she wanted to do it.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the BBC’s funding of S4C. The Government determine the funding for S4C. It merely comes from the licence fee pot. The BBC is being given knowledge of its funding for the coming year in today’s statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That does not affect the funding of S4C, which has already been determined. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the flexibility that we are giving S4C and the BBC to determine, potentially, alternative arrangements for the BBC’s support for S4C. That was a request from S4C, which saw it as a benefit that it might receive other forms of support from the BBC, but of course it will have to be by agreement, so the BBC will not be able to change that unless S4C and the BBC reach an agreement together.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East asked for further details about the Secretary of State’s power to approve commercial activities of S4C. We feel that allowing that to be done in writing, rather than by order, provides greater flexibility. The timescale for taking advantage of commercial opportunities, together with the confidential nature of the activities sometimes involved, makes it difficult to do that by order. The Secretary of State will be required to publish any approvals, exempting only confidential matters, and the Secretary of State of course remains accountable to Parliament. I do not think that there is any cause for concern in either case.
The clause is essentially based on the recommendations of the review of S4C, which the hon. Member for Arfon pointed out was widely welcomed across Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 37
Tier 1 services
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 37, page 77, leave out lines 6 to 9.
This amendment, together with Amendments 23 to 27, is intended to pave the way for the regulation of all video on demand services, rather than just those designated as “Tier 1” services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 23, in clause 37, page 77, line 11, leave out
“that is a Tier 1 service”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 24, in clause 37, page 77, line 14, leave out from “of” to the end of line 16 and insert
“on-demand programme services and non-UK on-demand programme services”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 25, in clause 37, page 77, line 28, leave out
“that are Tier 1 services”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 26, in clause 37, page 77, line 37, leave out “Tier 1” and insert
“the regulation of on-demand programme”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Amendment 27, in clause 37, page 78, line 1, leave out “Tier 1” and insert
“the regulation of on-demand programme”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 22.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased that we are making good progress in scrutinising the Bill, having reached part 4 on the regulation of on-demand services. We have spoken at length about the growth and popularity of on-demand services, so it may come as a surprise to some members of the public that the content on most of our video on-demand services is not regulated. We are all used to high standards, thanks to the high-quality content provided by PSBs, which we see when we turn on our television set, and the regulatory landscape that complements that content; but it is easy not to consider whether regulatory standards apply to content on demand. Indeed, the high standards set by our PSBs have played a big part in creating an atmosphere in which newer streaming services have had to provide content of the highest standards. They have to model best practice to compete with traditional television.
That has put us on a good footing, and the streaming services and on-demand providers I have spoken to actually welcome the regulatory clarity that a new regime will provide. Currently, if a complaint is received against a piece of on-demand content, the service that has provided that content has nowhere to point towards in handling that complaint, and does not have to prove compliance with a regulatory regime. Part 4 brings on-demand services under the scope of Ofcom, and gives it new responsibilities, including to follow a new on-demand code. It is a good thing for viewers and providers, who will benefit from consistent high standards in the on-demand space.
However, I have concerns regarding the proposed tiered approach to the framework. Clause 37 and schedule 5 both set out that only tier 1 services will be regulated under the new regime. The only real information we have about how tier 1 will be defined, however, is that it will be based on size, which is determined by audience figures, turnover and catalogues.
In many areas of the Bill, there has rightly been a desire to avoid being too prescriptive in the primary legislation in order to allow flexibility in the light of rapidly changing technological advances and viewer habits, but in the uncertainty and lack of detail about on-demand services has been troublesome for some providers. Netflix said in its submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that without clarity on scope, there was no way for it to tell whether the scope will ultimately be discriminatory.
I know that there are good intentions behind taking what might be considered to be a proportionate approach that avoids placing new burdens on smaller video services that are trying to grow and compete with much larger services. However, the approach could create perverse incentives. One can imagine smaller services becoming averse to growing, for fear of meeting the regulatory threshold and having to contort their services to comply.
Putting all services on a level playing field will ensure that no service is deterred from competing with those at the very top, and no one at the bottom can feel that the situation is unfair, or that they are being unfairly given burdens that others are not. Further, everyone will be given an entire year’s grace period in which to become compliant; that will ensure that those who are less prepared can come up to speed.
Perhaps even more pressing than the impact of the tiered approach on providers, however, is the effect that it will have on viewers. As the CMS Committee highlighted, the Government said that part of their purpose in introducing the provisions was
“to protect audiences from the potential harm arising from the gaps in the existing regulatory framework”
and to
“ensure UK audiences receive a similar level of protection no matter how they watch television— whether it be live or on-demand.”
Clearly, requiring only the largest video-on-demand providers to abide by the new regulatory scheme would not achieve that aim. For the average viewer who does not invest their leisure time in understanding the nuances of a tier 1 service, a category in which I believe most of the general public will fall, how will such a person possibly be aware whether they are watching a regulated service?
To strive to create a consistent regulatory approach between broadcast and on-demand services, while simultaneously creating an inconsistency within the regulation for on-demand services, seems counterintuitive. Viewers deserve to have certainty over the level of protection they are being provided with. Put simply, I believe that the best way to meet that aim is for the new video-on-demand code, and the various other changes in this part of the Bill, to be applied universally across all video-on-demand services watched by UK audiences.
Such a move has been also recommended by everyone from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Voice of the Listener & Viewer to Amazon and Netflix. Including all services would provide the harmonisation in regulatory approach that I believe the clause sets out to achieve. It would get rid of confusion for viewers and prevent any definition from being discriminatory or drawing what could have been a somewhat arbitrary line between services.
If the Government cannot accept my amendments, which would pave the way, I would be grateful if the Minister at least explained their current plans for the definition of tier 1 at this stage, and detail how they will work to create consistency in experience for viewers. I believe that we are on the same page about the importance of the new framework and what it could achieve, and I hope we can work constructively to ensure that it is the best it can be.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the hon. Lady’s general support for what the Government are trying to do by bringing video-on-demand services within the scope of regulation. We believe it is important for audiences to be appropriately protected when watching TV on demand. We will do that through what we see as a proportionate regulatory approach, which will ensure that all the mainstream streaming services that target UK audiences are subject to rules similar to the existing ones governing UK TV broadcasters.
Under the Bill, any UK on-demand service used by a PSB other than the BBC will automatically be designated as tier 1. Alongside that, other mainstream TV-like video-on-demand services will be designated after the Media Bill comes into force, following a review of the market by Ofcom. I can tell the hon. Lady that all the streaming services with which most people are familiar will certainly come under tier 1, but at this stage we cannot publish a list or the general categories to determine it because the market is rapidly evolving. Once again, as elsewhere in the Bill, we want to have a degree of flexibility and we believe that regulatory change needs to be proportionate and practical.
At the moment, more than 270 video-on-demand services are notified with Ofcom. Many of them simply do not provide TV-like content and nor are they widely accessible, so it is important to balance audience protection with freedom of expression, and to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on them. Consultations that have been conducted already tell us that extending tier 1 regulations to the smallest niche services, such as a football team’s on-demand service, could unfairly and unnecessarily penalise them with little or no benefit to audience protection.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I am very supportive of a tier system, but a broadcaster on linear TV, be it a football station or a new start-up, would be bound by the Ofcom broadcasting code. Why would rules in the new online environment be different from those for someone who holds a broadcast licence in the linear world? That does not seem to make a lot of sense.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right that at the moment linear TV channels are required to be licensed by Ofcom, but in the new world it is much more likely that we are going to see quite small niche channels, which serve a particular audience. There has been a proliferation of such services, which simply could not really have taken place in the old linear world. That is why the Government felt it was right that new services that command considerable audiences and target a broad range of viewers should be subject to the same sorts of requirements as exist for linear broadcasters.
However, it would be excessive to place those requirements on every single new notified VOD service, including those that are relatively small and serve very small and defined audiences. If it is determined that a small service has the potential to cause harm, the Bill allows that it can be designated as tier 1. The Government retain the power to do so if there is evidence supporting a need for it. That will allow us to ensure that regulation can be updated or added to.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I can very much see the logic that the Minister describes. To recall my private Member’s Bill on small-scale DAB, one of the issues was that people could use a laptop to set up an online radio station in their bedroom with no regulation at all, or they had to jump up to being a large broadcasting operation. I agree with the Minister that there is a logic to having a tiered system, so that we do not have either no regulation at all for those online or, for any form of broadcasting, regulation on the level of a very large operation.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right that there are different levels of service that require different amounts of monitoring and oversight. To my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, I would say that UK-based on-demand services are already required to abide by the on-demand programme service rules, which are less restrictive than the Ofcom regulations but control things such as hate speech and have basic protections for young audiences. It is appropriate that we determine the appropriate level of regulation on the basis of the audience and the size of the station. As I say, Parliament will be given further information that sets out the list or description of services at least five sitting days ahead of any regulation, so there will be transparency and oversight. For that reason, we do not feel it necessary to bring all the existing video-on-demand services within tier 1 at this time.
Stephanie Peacock
I am, of course, aware of the complexity of removing the tier 1 element from the Bill at this stage, and I acknowledge that agreeing to this set of amendments would create difficulties for the Bill more generally. I was aware of that when drafting the amendments, but I wanted to raise the issue that the Bill is perhaps not clear enough about—what the video-on-demand provisions will apply to and how audiences would receive the certainty they need. The Minister has alleviated some of those concerns today, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 37, page 77, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 368C (Duties of the appropriate regulatory authority), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) The appropriate regulatory authority must draw up, and from time to time review and revise, appropriate guidance relating to the duty of providers of on-demand programme services to ensure the archiving and retrieval of programming delivered by these services for the purposes of preserving cultural heritage.
(6B) The guidance under subsection (6A) must include guidance on providers’ relationships with—
(a) the British Library;
(b) the National Library of Scotland (Leabharlann Nàiseanta na h-Alba);
(c) Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru (the National Library of Wales);
(d) the Library of Trinity College Dublin;
(e) the British Film Institute.’”
This amendment would place a duty on OFCOM (or other regulator) to draw up guidance aimed at streaming services giving them duties to liaise with legal deposit libraries and the BFI to ensure that appropriate measures and strategies are in place for the archiving of video.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—National Television Archive—
“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 4A, after section 368R, insert—
‘368RA Contributions towards maintenance of national television archive
(1) OFCOM shall, for the financial year which includes the commencement of this section and each subsequent financial year, determine an amount which they consider it would be appropriate for a provider of on-demand programme services to contribute, in accordance with this section, towards the expenses incurred by a nominated body in connection with the maintenance by it of a national television archive.
(2) In this section “a nominated body” means such body as may for the time being be nominated by OFCOM for the purposes of this section, being a body which—
(a) appears to OFCOM to be in a position to maintain a national television archive, and
(b) is engaged in preserving the cultural and social heritage in one of more of—
(i) Scotland,
(ii) Wales,
(iii) Northern Ireland, or
(iv) England.
(3) A provider of on-demand programme shall pay to OFCOM, in respect of each of the financial years mentioned in subsection (1), such amount as they may notify to them for the purposes of this section, being such proportion of the aggregate amount determined for that year under that subsection as they consider appropriate (and different proportions may be determined in relation to different persons).
(4) Any amount received by OFCOM by virtue of subsection (3) shall be transmitted by them to a nominated body.’”
This new clause would extend the current provisions under the Broadcasting Act 1990 that pertain to Channel 3, Channel 4, and Channel 5 to on-demand programme providers, namely that they make a contribution towards the costs of a national television archive.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee again today. Amendment 38 and new clause 9 relate to the archiving of television content.
The television archives are pretty fabulous. A lot of stuff is available there, but there are also significant gaps, including some of the earliest broadcasts. Earlier this year, Aberdeen celebrated 100 years of radio broadcasting. Aberdeen has been a hub of Gaelic radio broadcasting for quite some time, which is slightly bizarre given the small number of Gaelic speakers in Aberdeen. Unfortunately, we do not have access to some of the earliest broadcasts, because they were not properly archived or saved. We have seen that issue through the years with a number of different things.
The amendment is meant to probe. It is a request for the Minister to have a look at the issue and highlight the disparities in relation to it. Amendment 38 asks the regulatory authority to
“draw up, and…review and revise, appropriate guidance relating to the duty of providers of on-demand programme services to ensure the archiving and retrieval of programming”
to ensure that our cultural heritage is preserved. I do not think that it is unreasonable for the Government to require that of agencies or on-demand programmers that are providing programmes that are part of our cultural heritage.
Stephanie Peacock
Preserving television and visual content is a way of preserving our history. There are already some amazing examples of how television is collected and archived. The British Film Institute, for example, looks after one of the largest and most important collections of film and television in the world, where teams of experts ensure that the collective programmes are accessible for generations to come. In particular, the BFI’s priceless television archive, which includes programming from the 1950s, can help us to tell with fascinating clarity the story of British television and Britain at large over the last 70 years. Since 2016, the BFI has automatically recorded various channels, all day, on an on-air and off-air basis, meaning that the recording is complete with adverts, trailers and announcements. That archive will only become more precious as the years pass.
The BFI archive is complemented by the BBC Archive, which contains over 1.5 million items recorded on everything from film to videotape to digital files. Despite the range of the BBC Archive, there are still programmes missing from that collection, particularly from earlier years of broadcasting. The BBC cites a few reasons for that, including limited means of recording, the expense of recording and tapes of which there was only one copy simply being lost. It also says that limited records were also the result of the fact that there was no requirement to build an archive. It was not until 1979 that the advisory committee on archives recommended that a requirement to keep archives be included in the charter, at which point programmes began more routinely to be kept for good.
It might be easy to assume that archiving in the digital age might be a given, given the capacity of the internet to host vast amounts of information that is then available at our request. However, even digital files and the cloud ultimately rely on physical infrastructure, and the nature of the internet means that there is more content than ever that requires such storage. I therefore support amendment 38, which seeks to set guidance on the archiving and retrieval of on-demand programming. That is not only because we cannot take it for granted that such programming will be properly archived, but because it matters how and where those archives are stored and whether something ends up being in the public interest.
I hope that, in the years to come, we can preserve broadcasting as an insight into our society and culture. To achieve that, we will need input from and collaboration between on-demand programming services and those institutions that can help with archiving, such as the national libraries and the BFI. I believe that amendment 38 recognises that and looks to set us up for a future that values the past.
On new clause 9, although I am interested to hear more about the idea of a nominated body being responsible for a centralised national archive, I am not sure about the detail of how it would work. I feel that I should ask, on behalf of the on-demand services implicated here, what the forecasted cost implications are and on what basis a contributory system has been identified as the most effective and efficient way for services to be part of the effort of archiving. I wonder whether, perhaps, the way forward should not be assumed, as it is in the clause, but rather should hinge on any guidance that is issued as a result of amendment 38, particularly with reference to using those archives and resources that are already working well.
I emphasise that I am keen to support the archiving of our television services, but I want to ensure that the way that is done is carefully considered and properly consulted on.
Hywel Williams
I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, as well as the new clause, and to reassure her and the Committee. In her amendment, she refers to Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru: the National Library of Wales. It maintains the Archif Film Theledu Cymru—the Welsh Film and Television Archive—which is a highly successful development in Aberystwyth.
I also note that these archives have monetary value. In passing, ITV in Wales, for example, has a regular programme with clips from the ’60s, illustrating Welsh life. It fills half an hour—more than fills it. It is not just to fill space. It is very interesting, particularly to people who see culture in its broadest sense: not high culture, but the entire scope of human activity in Wales. It is available in the National Library of Wales, but is also available to broadcasters.
Sir John Whittingdale
I think that there is general agreement across the Committee about the importance of archiving television programmes that are of cultural significance. That is already the case, as we know, for the public service broadcasters. Indeed, I can recall the excitement when various episodes of, for instance, “Doctor Who” or “Only Fools and Horses” were rediscovered, having been lost before the requirement for archiving was in place. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North is absolutely right that there are now examples of programmes or series commissioned by on-demand services that are of similar value—she mentioned “Bridgerton”, for instance. I was fortunate enough to go and see the final episode of “The Crown”, which Netflix showed us a couple of night ago, in advance of its being made available, and that undoubtedly will be seen for a long time to come as a culturally important programme that needs to be preserved.
Where we differ slightly is that the Government’s view is that a non-legislative approach is best able to achieve the objective of archiving on-demand content. The BFI is extremely active in this area and works directly with mainstream services such as Netflix and Amazon. The BFI National Archive has already entered into initial partnerships with Netflix and Amazon to provide both financial contributions and a curated selection of their UK content. The BFI is also talking to other subscription video-on-demand platforms and will continue to do so as it moves ahead with its Screen Culture 2033 ambitions.
We are pleased that considerable progress is being made and we do not want to impose unnecessary additional requirements on organisations at this time. Therefore we do not see a necessity to legislate at the moment.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that, and I appreciate the work that the BFI is doing on this. In the event that the BFI found it particularly difficult to get an agreement with an on-demand service, would the Government assist with some of the conversations in order to ensure that the cultural heritage is preserved, if they were asked to give some level of assistance or if the BFI were struggling with some level of intransigence?
Sir John Whittingdale
I recall discussing this matter with the BFI some years ago and I absolutely share its wish, and indeed the hon. Lady’s wish, that it should have access to any of the programming content that it felt was important to preserve. I hope that the circumstances that she describes will not happen, but should they do so, I or whoever is holding my position would, I hope, be keen to assist in those discussions with any video-on-demand provider.
Finally, I come to the amendment that the hon. Lady tabled. Amendment 38 includes Trinity College Dublin, which of course is not a UK institution, and we do not feel that it would be appropriate to instruct the deposit of important works with an overseas institution. For that reason, and for the reasons that I have described, we cannot accept the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister very much and genuinely appreciate the way in which he has approached this amendment. I am pleased that around the room we are happy and keen to see the archiving of lots of culturally important television footage and on-demand footage as well. I believe, from what the Minister has said, that he has a good handle on this, and I am glad to hear that he does feel that it is important enough for the possibility of intervention in the future should a significant gap be identified. Hopefully, as he says, we will not get to the point at which that happens. Given the Minister’s comments, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 5, page 142, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) In preparing or revising a code under section 368HF, OFCOM must take account of how principles will apply in a video-on-demand context where there is a library of content where users choose what programmes to watch and when.”
This amendment would place a requirement on Ofcom, when preparing the Video on Demand code, to consider how principles will apply in a VoD context where there is a library of content where users choose what programmes to watch and when.
Schedules 5 to 7.
Sir John Whittingdale
We now come to the core of this part of the Bill, which is the extension of regulation to the major video-on-demand services. Take-up has grown dramatically in recent years, and many of them make a significant contribution to the UK economy. Audiences now have access to thousands of hours of their favourite television programmes at the touch of a button, but providers are not regulated in the UK to the same extent as linear TV channels, and some mainstream international services are not regulated in the UK at all. That means that TV-like content in the UK is regulated differently depending on how audiences choose to watch it.
Stephanie Peacock
As I hopefully emphasised in an earlier discussion, I am on the whole supportive of clause 37 and schedule 5, which will bring video-on-demand services into Ofcom’s scope. It is absolutely right that on-demand services are regulated against a new standards code, given their popularity with the public. That will provide certainty for providers and viewers alike. Of course, it will be up to Ofcom to develop the detail of the new standards code, but I welcome the requirement to consult the services that are regulated by the new code and audience representatives before it is finalised.
The objectives that the code should meet are set in the Bill, as is some further detail on due impartiality. There is also a list of matters that Ofcom should have regard to in preparing the code. As such, the Bill sets out the framework within which the code will be drawn up.
However, there are aspects of the framework that have caused some concern among providers of video-on-demand services. I will address those concerns in relation to amendment 28—I appreciate the Minister’s comments about it—before I move on to the accessibility code and schedules 6 and 7. Providers’ most common concern is that it does not seem that the framework takes into consideration the differences between the broadcast and on-demand environments.
As Netflix pointed out to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, regulation of linear television was driven by a concern that viewers may come across unsuitable content by accident. The risk is inherent and specific to linear TV, as a viewer cannot dictate what is shown to them on any one channel at any one time.
As such, the broadcast code ensures that broadcasters make choices on behalf of the viewer that protect them from being subject to unsuitable content. For example, as Disney+ points out, the 9 pm watershed helps to shield children from inappropriate language and themes for their age. In an on-demand setting, however, every decision to view a title is active and deliberate. Video on-demand catalogues can hold thousands of titles, of both new and catalogued content, with the audience in complete control of what they decide. In that context, platforms make fewer choices on behalf of the viewer and instead aim to provide the information and tools they need to make informed choices themselves. The Bill does not explicitly address the differences, but I am grateful for the Minister’s points and I welcome them.
I want to move on to discuss the accessibility code, which will apply alongside the broader standards code already discussed. I am pleased to welcome that second code, which will ensure that on-demand services adopt a minimum standard of accessibility on the content they make available for UK audiences, with target figures rising over time. For example, providers must ensure after two years that at least 40% of their total catalogue has subtitling, at least 5% has audio description and at least 2.5% has sign language, rising after four years to 80%, 10% and 5%, respectively.
That has been welcomed by Ofcom, which says the measures reflect its 2018 and 2021 recommendations to Government, which should bring tangible benefits to disabled people, including the 87,000 people with British Sign Language as their preferred language and the more than 2 million people living with sight loss. It has also been welcomed by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which have been campaigning together for on-demand services to deliver access services. They say that 80% of those with hearing loss or who are deaf stop watching a programme when subtitles are not available, showing just how important they are to people’s ability to enjoy video on-demand content.
I wonder whether the section could have been more ambitious. Disney+ said in its contribution to the CMS Committee that it is confident it already meets the obligations set in the Bill and Netflix also said it has English-language subtitles for 100% of its UK catalogue and audio description of all its English-language branded content in the UK. Though on-demand services should be commended for that great work, it shows that a target of 40% of content being subtitled could be stronger. I understand that the 5% target for signed content on large back catalogues is seen by some as slightly more burdensome, but BSL users deserve to watch on-demand services as much as anyone.
Where BSL interpretation is available, it is used, with the BBC reporting that 1.4 million people watched the signed coverage of the coronation. Does the Department, therefore, have any plans to increase the requirements in future? I would hope that the standards are seen as a minimum and just the beginning, rather than an aspirational goal or target for larger services. Indeed, should the code be applied beyond tier 1 services at any point, I would expect that smaller services might be exempt from some of the quotas where necessary.
The RNIB and RNID have further shared with me their concerns about the timescale for implementation. Powers were initially created in the Digital Economy Act 2017 to set minimum levels of access services for on-demand TV. The timeline just shows how rarely such legislative opportunities come about. Are there any mechanisms that could shorten the timescale if desired or needed?
It is also important that online and digital accessibility measures are not used as an excuse to axe services that are more convenient and inherently accessible to disabled people. When campaigning against the changes being made to BBC local radio services, I met the National Federation of the Blind multiple times. They taught me that radios with real, tactile buttons are often much easier for the visually impaired to operate compared with websites, even though websites claim to be more accessible. It is important, therefore, that an increase in accessible content through on-demand services is not used as a reason for saying that other options are no longer necessary.
I would like to touch on the issue of disabled representation in the media more broadly which was highlighted to me by Brooke Millhouse and Simon Sansome, who run podcasts on disabilities as part of their work. I met them briefly a few weeks ago alongside the shadow Minister for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). It is very important that on-demand services can be accessed by disabled people, but that can and should be matched with a conscious effort to better represent the lives of disabled people in that content. That means getting more disabled people into the creative industries, right the way through from writers to actors, in the hope of creating a more diverse array of disabled characters. In doing so, we might be able to finally put a stop to disabled people primarily being represented in the extremes.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Lady is making a powerful and important point. All of us feel better when we can see lives like ours reflected on the television screen. She is absolutely right that we currently see extremes for disabled people; we do not see them on television programmes living their lives as they do. It is all about, “That person is disabled, and that is why they are on this programme,” rather than, “That person is on this programme; they are living their life and they happen to be disabled,” which is much more reflective of life in general.
Stephanie Peacock
I completely agree. That is the point I am attempting to convey to the Committee: that we want to see everyday life reflected on television, and that obviously includes disabled people. What work is the Minister’s Department doing to open up opportunities for disabled people in the creative industries and to encourage better representation in the media?
As I have said before, if we to implement a new regime whose effects we really believe in, but that regime relies on Ofcom being a strong regulatory presence, Ofcom must be empowered to act with strength where that is needed; otherwise, the desired impact will not be realised. As such, I am happy with the powers set out in schedule 6, but what recent conversations has the Minister had with Ofcom about its capacity to carry out all the new duties bestowed upon it by the Bill? It is important to the integrity of the new regime for on-demand services, and to the Bill more widely, that there is confidence on all sides in Ofcom’s ability to enforce the new regulation.
Schedule 7 amends references to tier 1 services in the Representation of the People Act 1983, the Communications Act 2003, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the Online Safety Act 2023. I will speak specifically about the amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1996, as those changes will have a more tangible impact. The changes in this schedule require Ofcom to create a tier 1 fairness and privacy code and to bring tier 1 services in line with Ofcom’s enforcement powers on breaches of the fairness and privacy code. Hopefully, that will protect members of the public from unwarranted infringements of privacy resulting from the activities of video-on-demand services, but some on-demand and streaming services, particularly Netflix, have raised concerns about the impact on their content and on Ofcom’s resources. They warn that, since the fairness and privacy code will enable complaints to be made from outside the UK, Ofcom could become something of a global policeman, and will have use its resources dealing with complaints from people who do not live in the UK but have failed to seek redress elsewhere.
That practice—complaint tourism—is of particular concern to Netflix in relation to its catalogue. It says it is aware of international complainants previously trying to use the UK regulator to get material removed. It appears from the pre-legislative scrutiny process that Ofcom does not share those concerns. Its approach seems to be that if harm is happening, or there is a risk of harm to UK audiences, it wants to know, regardless of whether a complaint is being raised by someone outside the UK. However, it would be reassuring if the Government and Ofcom worked together to monitor the extent to which the code requires Ofcom to manage a high volume of complaints from abroad, to ensure that genuine complaints can be handled appropriately and that complaints with malicious intent are not encouraged.
Overall, I hope it is clear that I am pleased that the on-demand services will finally be regulated. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister in response to my questions about the details.
Sir John Whittingdale
As I said in my earlier remarks, we feel that the hon. Lady’s amendment in particular is unnecessary. Regarding the phrase “matters to be taken into account” by Ofcom in drawing up the list, those matters that are specified in the Bill are not exclusive; there is an ability to take other matters into account. The purpose of this measure is to set out the general regard for the principles that Ofcom is required to consider, so I do not think that this amendment would add anything to the existing position. For that reason, we do not support it.
I agree with the hon. Lady very much about the importance of accessibility. As she rightly said, that is something that the organisations representing disabled people have been campaigning on for a long time. Regarding the targets in the Bill, it is the hope and expectation that broadcasters will exceed the minimum targets wherever possible, but it is possible for the Secretary of State to increase the minimum targets at some future date.
Interestingly, the hon. Lady said that she does not want to add to the burden on smaller services. To some extent, that is exactly why the tier 1 provisions were put in place: so that the requirements are different for much smaller services, which would otherwise find them quite burdensome. As for her comments about Ofcom’s resource, it is certainly not the intention that Ofcom should become a sort of global policeman acting on behalf of anybody around the world who wants to make a complaint, particularly about content that is designed for global audiences. Some of the big streaming platforms commission programmes that are intended to be viewed right around the world, but Ofcom’s role is to protect UK consumers, and obviously it will need to take that into account in how it administers the code.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the overall intention behind these measures. I am sorry that I cannot accept her amendment, but I think the Bill will deliver what she wants to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 38
Audience protection reviews
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 38, page 78, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) information about where viewers can seek help if they have been affected by content.”
This amendment would add “signposting” measures to the audience protection measures which OFCOM must review under new section 368OB of the Communications Act 2003.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 34, in clause 38, page 78, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) When considering the adequacy of age ratings, OFCOM must assess whether any age ratings used by providers are—
(a) widely recognised by the UK public;
(b) underpinned by a transparent set of standards;
(c) informed by regular consultation with the UK public.”
Clause stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
I have already spoken in detail about the rise of on-demand services and the need to bring them into the scope of Ofcom regulation. At the heart of these calls is a desire to ensure high standards of protection for audiences, so I welcome clause 38, which requires Ofcom to carry out a review of the protection measures in place on on-demand services. I understand that this review will then be considered against the duty to protect audiences from harm, as set out in the Communications Act 2003, to ensure that standards of protection are high across the board.
It is important, as Ofcom pointed out in its contribution to the CMS Committee inquiry, that such a review considers the unique differences seen in an on-demand environment. For example, rather than catching a programme halfway through, users are likely to start at the beginning of an episode or movie, meaning that there is an opportunity to warn audiences about the nature of the content they are about to see. With that in mind, I am happy for the most part with the clause, as the examples of matters to be considered include parental controls, content warnings, age assurance measures and age ratings. I will speak about them in more detail in a moment, but first I will pick up on a point made by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. In its submission to the CMS Committee, the trust identified something that had perhaps been left out of the list of measures that are to be reviewed, in particular the value of signposting and educational resources when viewers might be impacted by a programme.
Content warnings and age ratings can give a viewer an idea of what a piece of content might contain before they watch it. Although there is always a chance that a viewer will be affected by a programme or film in an unanticipated ways, some viewers may go ahead and watch a programme knowing that it may affect them, in an attempt to find solidarity about something that they have gone through. In such cases, information on where to seek further help can be extremely useful, not only for the individual who will be able to access support and resources, but for society as a whole when programmes address potentially harmful topics such as racism, extremism or self-harm. In those cases, further resources can help to counter any damaging narratives.
This sort of education and signposting is not a new concept. Indeed, on linear television, we often see a message pop up at the end of a show to guide us towards a particular charity or organisation if we have been affected by the content. On-demand services have also adopted that approach in some areas. For example, the Antisemitism Policy Trust says it has engaged in discussion with Channel 4 about its support offers following a documentary the channel hosted on antisemitism. However, there does not seem to be a co-ordinated approach to that sort of feature, and I fear that could continue if the measures are not included in the clause.
The Ofcom review should cover signposting and educational resources as an important component of audience protection, alongside those measures already listed. Such measures can and should play an important part in complementing warnings and ratings, which cannot do much to help once a piece of content has already been watched. Amendment 30 does not prescribe that education and signposting will always be necessary or even needed in just some circumstances; it simply suggests that the way in which they are used should be reviewed alongside other audience protection measures. I hope that the Minister and colleagues will support the amendment, with a view to putting the best interests of viewers first.
There has also been a lot of discussion about whether it would be appropriate to identify a single system of age ratings across on-demand services. As has been the case throughout much of the Bill, the clause is not over-prescriptive about how age ratings and protections for under-18s should be presented in the new audience protection code for on-demand services. It simply confirms that such ratings should be reviewed as part of the process. Of course, such protections are extremely important. On linear television, the watershed has long provided a distinct barrier to ensure that content is age appropriate to the time it is being shown. Further, there is a high standard of protection in place on the content that public service broadcasters create in general, due to a combination of regulations, which has been crucial in ensuring that children are not exposed to material that could be damaging to them and their development. How we mirror those protections for online content must therefore be explored in depth, both by us in Parliament and Ofcom in its review.
Despite the need to keep legislation flexible, I believe that some criteria for age ratings should be recognised legally, but they have not yet been. There are already some strong examples of good practice in the area of age classification. In particular, I will highlight the work being carried out by the British Board of Film Classification. Long before there was a possibility of consuming thousands of films on our phones, BBFC was providing trusted age classification services for cinemas and packaged media. Its ratings are almost universally recognised across the UK; the general public have a strong understanding of the categories, which run from U to 18. Trust in BBFC ratings comes not only from their being widely recognised, but from their being underpinned by a transparent set of standards and informed by regular consultation with the UK public, so that changing attitudes on relevant topics such as violence and swearing can be taken into account. That consistency, transparency and track record over time means that where BBFC ratings are used, families can be sure that the content is appropriate for the stated age group.
To keep providing its service in the modern media landscape, BBFC has been working hard to adapt its best-practice age-labelling system to be used in video-on-demand settings. That is exemplified by its hugely successful partnership with Netflix, where 100% of content now carries BBFC ratings on a voluntary basis. Netflix uses the BBFC criteria to police its own content, which is then periodically cross-checked by the BBFC for accuracy. That model seems to have great potential to be rolled out further to provide universally understood and trusted ratings for children and adults alike, but some providers use alternative methods of providing age ratings and protections.
Sir John Whittingdale
I absolutely share the desire of the hon. Member for Barnsley East, and I suspect all members of the Committee, to protect children and vulnerable audiences from harmful and inappropriate video-on-demand content. As we discussed earlier, the principle underlying this part of the Bill is to bring mainstream TV-like on-demand services in scope of the new code to be drafted and enforced by Ofcom.
Ofcom already has considerable experience in the regulation of broadcast TV to ensure that it is age-appropriate, and those those who may be deeply affected by what they see or hear are protected. Clause 38 inserts new section 368OB into the Communications Act 2003, giving Ofcom a new ongoing duty to review audience protection measures on all UK-based video-on-demand services and on any non-UK services that are brought under Ofcom regulation for the first time as a result of being designated as tier 1.
As we previously discussed, while linear television has a watershed that means unsuitable material should not be shown before 9pm, it is not possible to have a similar arrangement for on-demand content, so alternative protection measures are needed. Age-ratings, content warnings and parental controls in particular are necessary tools for parents and guardians; they give information to all audiences on what they are about to see. We do not want to restrict Ofcom on what it considers to be protection measures. It needs to be able to take account of the impact of systems that evolve in the future through new technology and audience trends. The Bill gives Ofcom powers to request information from providers, to provide guidance, to report, and to use existing sanctioning powers to deal with any providers that they consider are not providing appropriate audience protections.
Andy Carter
I accept what the Minister is saying about the role of Ofcom. May I take him back to his earlier point about the 9 o’clock watershed? That was the time when children went to bed so that they did not see things. It was a protection mechanism. One thing that we have seen with the development of technology is the introduction of a children’s profile so that we can exclude children from content on demand.
What concerns me is that all the individual VOD companies rate their own content, and different companies and providers to have a very different view of what they believe is suitable for children. The shadow Minister made a particular point about Disney+. Because my son is taking GCSE English, I watched “A Christmas Carol” the other day; there is a Disney version that was on at 9 pm. I would not have wanted a 16-year-old to watch that. It contained graphic nudity and foul language, and I was very concerned that if I had set the rating at a particular level for a child to watch, they would have been exposed to something that I and most parents would be uncomfortable with them seeing. Can the Minister assure me that the framework that Ofcom puts in place will deliver a comparable and consistent level of protection for children so that families and parents can be assured that the age rating system and the children’s profile will give that layer of protection?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am interested to hear that example. There will always be disagreement about what is suitable for children and what is not. Some parents will take a much stronger view on what is appropriate than others, who will think it part of the education. Ofcom has a lot of experience in this. I am not sure whether it was “A Christmas Carol”. I remember a good version that contained some quite graphic material, which perhaps was not in the original by Dickens. I think that was on the BBC, so it would have already been subject to Ofcom’s scrutiny.
Part of Ofcom’s overall objective, in determining whether a system of age rating is appropriate or viable, will be to make sure that it is in line with other systems, so that parents have a basic level of assurance, whatever they are watching and whatever system for determining age ratings is chosen by that provider.
Amendment 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Barnsley East, seeks to add information about where viewers can seek help, if they have been affected by content, to the list in new section 3680B of examples of audience protection measures. I completely agree that it is sometimes absolutely right that audiences be given a warning if they might suddenly encounter content that they were not expecting and which could be distressing. That already takes place across the broadcasting sector, and it is appropriate. However, the Bill already fully enables Ofcom to review or provide guidance on any such measures. The Bill purposely does not give an exhaustive list of measures that Ofcom can consider. As a result, it will enable Ofcom to take into account anything it considers to be appropriate. That can certainly include signposting.
The hon. Lady’s amendment 34 would impose requirements on Ofcom when it is assessing age ratings on VOD services. However, we feel that there is a danger that that might restrict innovation and impose extra requirements and costs on VOD providers that will not necessarily equate to increased protection. As I think I said on Second Reading, I am a great admirer of the work of the BBFC, with which I have worked for at least 30 years. Generally, it reaches very sensible decisions on what is deemed appropriate. It goes to great lengths to ensure that its ratings reflect the current standards of what the public views as appropriate for particular age ratings. My reluctance to support the hon. Lady’s amendment in this area is not in any way a reflection on or a criticism of the BBFC. The Government take the view that we do not think it appropriate to mandate the use of BBFC ratings at this time.
The important thing is that each channel should have a system of age ratings that delivers effective protection for young people. It is for Ofcom to assess whatever audience protection measures are put in place by that channel to ensure that they are effective and fit for purpose. We think that that is more effective than specifying any individual system. Ofcom will have the power it needs to provide guidance and to report and deal with any providers that it considers are not providing appropriate audience protections. For that reason, we feel that amendment 34 would put unnecessary restrictions on Ofcom and could preclude any new form of age ratings from entering the market. I am afraid that I am therefore unable to accept the hon. Lady’s amendments.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. Although I do not fully agree with his explanation, I am quite happy to withdraw amendment 30.
I will not press amendment 34, but I will just clarify that although I think there is agreement across the Committee that we support and praise the work of the BBFC, my amendment was not specifically mandating BBFC ratings or the use of the BBFC, however well it does. My amendment set out three best practice criteria: recognition, transparency and consultation. It proposed that those three things be taken into account by Ofcom. Obviously the BBFC does that very well, and others might too. The distinction that we are making is that where those are not taken into account and the public cannot necessarily trust age verification ratings, where problems emerge. However, I have put my points on the record and I am happy not to press amendment 34.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
S4C: on-demand programme services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
This is a very brief return to S4C, which we debated before our lunchtime break. All clause 39 will do is amend the Communications Act to update the regulation of S4C’s video-on-demand services to bring them into line with other UK on-demand services. It removes the red tape that currently means that Clic, the S4C on-demand service, is regulated not by Ofcom directly, but by S4C’s board, which could be fined by Ofcom if it contravened the basic requirements that other VOD services have to follow. The change will also mean that Clic will, in due course, be rightly regulated under Ofcom’s new VOD code. It will also have the accessibility requirements for subtitles, audio description and signing to support those with sight and hearing loss. I should add that the clause is also fully supported by S4C.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 39 will make amendments to the Communications Act to update the regulation of S4C’s video-on-demand services, as the Minister has just outlined. I believe these to be largely technical changes to create consistency, and I therefore have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Other amendments of Part 4A of the 2003 Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 40 introduces schedule 8, which contains minor amendments to part 4A of the Communications Act 2003, covering existing legislation for video-on-demand services. The changes will ensure that existing legislation will be updated where necessary to take into account the new regulatory regime for tier 1 services. These are simple, minor and technical amendments, which include updates to existing enforcement definitions to include the newly defined tier 1 non-UK services. Schedule 8 will also remove or amend old target-setting provisions on accessibility that are not needed after the addition of new, more robust accessibility requirements contained in schedule 5. I commend clause 40 and schedule 8 to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I have no particular concerns to raise about the content of the changes. As the Minister said, they make minor amendments to part 4A of the Communications Act, and update requirements and definitions to reflect the changes made in this part, and in the media landscape more generally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 41
Licensing of analogue radio services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
We now turn to part 5 and the provisions affecting radio. Clause 41 is the first of seven clauses through which the Government are updating the legislative framework for the licensing and regulation of commercial radio. The intention behind the changes is to ensure that the regulatory structure continues to support investment by broadcasters in content and the long-term sustainability of the sector. They will also strengthen the protections for local news and information which are a fundamental part of radio’s public value.
To that end, clause 41 will make a number of changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 to allow Ofcom greater flexibility when exercising its powers in relation to analogue radio licensing. Subsection (2) removes the current statutory requirement for Ofcom to provide for a diversity of analogue services. The requirement is no longer necessary, given the wide range of stations now available over digital. Subsection (3) gives Ofcom a new power to extend analogue licences in the event that a date is set for a digital switchover which postdates the expiry of any remaining licences. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased we have reached the stage of the Bill when we can discuss the importance of our radio services. There will be further opportunities to talk about protecting radio services in the digital age in part 6, but I would like to begin by acknowledging my support for radio. Indeed, as the digital radio and audio review recognised back in 2021, radio is a great British success story. Almost 90% of the population tune in to the radio each week, where they find trusted news, entertainment, music and cultural programming. It is important that these clauses look to protect the future of those services, from commercial to BBC to community radio, and ensure that people are able to enjoy them for years to come.
Despite the continued popularity of radio, however, the provision of services and listening habits have both changed significantly over the past few decades, particularly with regard to the decline of analogue radio. Since the launch of DAB, its popularity has grown and grown, resulting in 76% of listening to commercial radio now being on digital platforms. That trend has led to an estimate that analogue radio listening will account for just 12% to 14% of all radio listening by 2030. As a result, we must ensure no one who listens to analogue radio is prematurely excluded from accessing those services. As is the case with those who watch broadcast television, it is vital that we update our legislation to reflect the new realities in the sector.
The clause seeks to do just that by removing Ofcom’s duty to provide a range and diversity of national and local analogue radio services. Of course, is still important that a range and diversity of radio services are available. However, the rules applying specifically to analogue services were conceived when there was an inherently limited number of stations. Ensuring diversity within this small range of services was therefore sensible in order to cater for as many people’s needs as possible. Now that we are no longer limited to a small choice of analogue stations, there is an unprecedented range of radio services available. These truly do cater for everyone, covering genres from country to dance, and eras from the ’60s right through to the present day. Radiocentre confirms that these digital services will be unaffected by the changes in regulation, so this immense choice will remain available despite the changes in this Bill.
In that context, it seems appropriate to remove legal requirements on creating diversity in analogue services specifically. That is not to say that analogue services do not remain important; indeed, FM coverage is greater than DAB coverage, so it is vital to rural areas, particularly in Scotland. However, with the new and heavy regulatory responsibilities that Ofcom is taking on as a result of the Online Safety Act and this Bill, it is sensible that we alleviate outdated duties by recognising the bigger picture.
The clause will also make one other major change, following the commercial radio deregulation consultation in 2017. In the event of a digital switchover date being issued for radio, the clause allows Ofcom to extend for a short period any licences that are due to run out before that date, so that they can continue operating until the switchover date. It is my understanding that there is currently no nominated date for switchover. The digital radio and audio review has confirmed that FM spectrum will be needed for BBC, commercial and community analogue radio until at least 2030.
Should a date be announced in future, it makes sense that there be flexibility in licence arrangements to ensure that they can continue until any end date. Placing that flexibility in the Bill will hopefully save parliamentary time in the long run. The very fact that it was 2017 when the Government decided that that change would be made shows how rarely the opportunities come about to make legislative changes. However, although this measure will be sensible if the time comes, it is still very important for the timing to be right. It would therefore be good if the Minister outlined today the Department’s current thinking on the future of analogue radio beyond 2030. As has been mentioned, although we must take into account the dominance and range of DAB services provided, DAB is not available as widely as FM. The future of FM is still vital to people, particularly in rural areas.
As I did in speaking about broadcast television, I point to the Broadcast 2040+ campaign and its work to highlight the importance of preserving broadcast services despite the rise of online services; I was pleased to attend its event in Parliament. It is with that question on analogue radio’s future in mind, and with full support for the future of a diverse programme of radio services, that I would like to conclude.
Sir John Whittingdale
I welcome the hon. Lady’s invitation to speak a little more broadly on radio in general. About 20 years ago, lots of people were saying that radio was in permanent decline. It was thought that the advent of things like podcasts and streaming services such as Spotify would mean that people slowly gave up listening to radio.
I am delighted that that has proved to be completely wrong. Actually, radio is going from strength to strength, particularly in the commercial radio sector, at which these clauses of the Bill are primarily aimed. It is doing very well, which is extremely welcome.
Similarly, about 20 years ago there was a great debate about when we should switch off analogue transmission as people moved to digital. The hon. Lady is right to say that the take-up of digital broadcasting has been considerable and continues to grow. We now have additional means of radio reception, such as via smart speakers or online, which we will debate when we consider later clauses of the Bill. There is a wealth of ways in which listeners can access radio, but I think analogue, rather like digital terrestrial television, will be around for some considerable time. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady a date by which we think we might switch off analogue, but it is not under consideration at the moment. Actually, I do not think that radio is particularly pressing for it in the way it was some time ago, for cost reasons.
Sir John Whittingdale
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is a considerable expert in the matter.
Andy Carter
I will limit my comments on the clause to analogue radio. I am aware that there are community radio operators that would very much like to go on to the analogue spectrum, particularly in rural areas. Rutland and Stamford Sound has been providing a community service that would simply not work on DAB. I set up the first commercial radio station in Rutland. I know the territory incredibly well, and it does not work to run a small-scale service on DAB. So many transmitters would be needed that it just simply would not be viable. There is an operator there that wants to run an FM service. Will the Minister speak to Ofcom to look at offering more licences in rural areas where there is demand?
The second point I would like to raise with the Minister is also an issue for Ofcom. Where there has been small-scale DAB roll-out, we have many more excellent local services as a result, and I am supportive of it. However, the fact that the signal and reception of small-scale DAB are measured from a height of 10 foot, which is equivalent to the eaves of a house, has given rise to disappointment in communities. Not many radio receivers have aerials that high, so although it says on a graph that someone can hear it in a car down on the ground, the reality is that they cannot. Ofcom could look at that to improve small-scale DAB radio coverage at a local level.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is correct that attention has mainly been focused on small-scale DAB roll-out, which provides options for communities to access more locally based stations. My view has always been that we should let a thousand flowers bloom. Therefore, in whatever format, I would be keen to encourage the licensing and starting up of new stations, if possible. I am a great supporter of community radio as well.
I note that our hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) has been active in pressing the case for a station in her constituency. She is always active on behalf of her constituents and she has been outspoken in this policy area, having already been to see me about it once. I will draw Ofcom’s attention to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South and for Rutland and Melton, because I share the wish to see that take place, if possible.
The means by which they choose to transmit is up to stations. However, there is currently a requirement under their licence for national commercial stations to continue to maintain an analogue service. A point may come when there is no longer any particular benefit in doing so. That will not be covered by the Bill, but I would like to put on the record that I am personally quite sympathetic to the idea that, although analogue is appropriate in many cases, we should not necessarily force it where it is no longer appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Licensing and local services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clause 42 makes a number of changes to the Ofcom process for advertising local and restricted service licences and for renewing local licences. The provisions will give Ofcom a greater degree of flexibility in relation to the process for the licensing of local analogue commercial radio stations, given that the licences for nearly all such services will be eligible for renewal over the coming years. There should therefore be very few occasions when a licence needs to be advertised.
Subsection (3) will allow a licence holder to renew its licence in circumstances where the station intends to broadcast on digital but is not in a position to do so because a suitable digital multiplex service is not available in its broadcast area. In these circumstances, the station would have to nominate a suitable, either local or small scale, multiplex service as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so and commit to taking carriage when that service launches. That will ensure that smaller stations that have been unable to take advantage of renewals will be in the same position as larger stations.
Clause 43 makes a number of changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Communications Act 2003. It provides stations with increased flexibility to respond to changing listener preferences by removing the requirement for them to commit and adhere to conditions in their licences requiring them to, for instance, broadcast specific genres of content or target a particular age group. These requirements made sense in 1990, when they helped the Radio Authority to manage the development of local FM services on limited spectrum and to seek to maximise the public value of the spectrum, but they have become obsolete given the range of stations available across the UK on digital. However, Ofcom will still be required to ensure that there is local news and information on local radio, as set out in clause 44, which I look forward to debating very shortly. In the meantime, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 42 amends rules around local radio licences, as the Minister has outlined.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 sets out that Ofcom must publish a notice stating that it proposes to grant a licence to a local service before granting such a licence. The notice must specify the area in which the service will be provided, invite applications for the licence, specify a close date and state the fee for applications. This sort of competition is becoming less and less necessary, particularly as most licences are eligible for renewal under additional rules in the Broadcasting Act that allow for renewal when Ofcom is satisfied the licence holder is also providing a local digital radio service. As such, it makes sense to give Ofcom the discretion to decide how applications will be made in future, removing the prescriptive notice and competition requirements. This will allow for flexibility going forward, allowing Ofcom to exercise its own judgment on applications in a changing landscape while also maintaining its ability to require fees if necessary.
The clause also allows for parity on the ability to renew a licence where it is not possible to broadcast a digital service. It seems fair to ensure radio services that intend to broadcast on digital but physically cannot do so are not excluded from being able to renew their licence in the same way as those with a digital service. The technical changes being made in this part have been long awaited, and I hope it will benefit both Ofcom and radio services to finally have flexibility where it is needed.
Similarly to clause 41, clause 43 accounts for the fact that things have changed quite dramatically from the times where a strict, finite number of radio licences were available. In a situation where there were limited services, it made sense that licences for providing such services would include precise conditions on character to ensure that each station provided content to a high standard. Indeed, the current requirements on character are prescriptive, and can be deviated from only if Ofcom is satisfied the departure will not narrow the range of radio programmes available to people living in the area where the licence was provided. However, given the unprecedented choice and diversity of content now available across commercial radio, to have such strict conditions on character seems much less necessary. It makes sense, therefore, to review which aspects of the conditions on character should be kept, and which are outdated.
I will speak more on the requirements that must be maintained when discussing clause 44, but overall it seems sensible to provide more flexibility on character conditions given the range of services now available, which this clause allows for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Local news and information
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 44, page 83, line 12, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) The Secretary of State must publish guidance as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section on the guidance which OFCOM is required to draw up under subsection (2), including the meaning of “local news” for the purposes of subsection (1).’”
This amendment would require the Government to publish guidance regarding OFCOM’s responsibility to ensure that broadcasting licences contain conditions requiring the broadcast of local news and information, including clarity on what ‘local news’ means in this context.
Stephanie Peacock
Following on from the removal of prescriptive licence requirements in clause 43, clause 44 makes further amendments to the requirements on the character of local radio services. In short, it strengthens the need to provide local news on analogue services, while repealing requirements to provide other local material, increases flexibility on where local radio content is produced, and allows for future regulations to require news on digital local radio services.
I will speak to these changes in turn, starting with the newly strengthened requirements on local news on analogue services. The 2017 commercial radio deregulation consultation found that there was strong support across the board for provisions protecting local news. In fact, many respondents said that local and national news are often the prime reason that people choose to listen to a particular radio station. On the other hand, there are poor financial incentives for stations to provide news, which can be expensive to produce. I agree with that and, as I said many times during the debates on BBC local radio services, local news has proved its importance time and again in recent years—whether by providing school closure updates in extreme weather events or keeping people updated during the pandemic.
Localised radio updates are even more important for people who cannot access news in other ways—for example, those with visual impairments or those without an internet connection due to cost or location. As a result, it is pleasing to see that there will still be clear requirements on the provision of local news on analogue stations, particularly given the crossover between those who are unable to access a stable internet connection and those living in places without access to digital radio signals. It is also pleasing to see that local news must include locally gathered news, encouraging positive relationships with local papers, journalists and agencies working directly in communities.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I find myself in fervent agreement with the hon. Lady on local news, and I wonder how she would define it. I have been concerned in my area of Buckinghamshire, because when Mix 96 ceased to exist when it was taken over by Bauer and made into Greatest Hits Radio Bucks, Beds and Herts, the amount of Buckinghamshire news coverage drastically reduced. Often, we have found that journalists do not live in the area, and we could have a news bulletin with no Buckinghamshire news in it at all, yet it is still officially compliant with the requirement for local news. What is her view of what local should mean in practice?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Member makes an incredibly good point and I welcome his support. Indeed, I will go on to speak about my amendment, which talks about what local is, and I would be delighted if he would like to support it.
Stephanie Peacock
If the hon. Member bears with me, I will give him the answer and the opportunity to perhaps vote for the amendment, too.
I want to raise the importance of local programming that is not also local news. Although I understand that there is a range of DAB services offering a whole host of programmes, it is a shame that there has not been some recognition of the value of non-news-related local programming among the changes, which dropped requirements on local spoken material and music. Again, as I spoke to in the debates on BBC local radio services, I hope that a range of the content continues to be delivered on local analogue services, as well as digital ones.
On the newly relaxed requirements on production, which mean that stations can provide local programming from studios outside the coverage of their area, I note that concerns were raised during the consultation process about the impact of that on local opportunities and routes in the industry, with production becoming concentrated in larger cities. Respondents said that a local presence can be important for listeners who want to feel connected to the content the station produces, so they might be less likely to engage with call-ins and competitions if they feel presenters and production are not based where they are.
I understand the need to carefully balance requirements on analogue services and to release undue burdens where possible, particularly given the changing landscape of listenership and the fact that there are no such localness requirements on DAB commercial services. However, I would still like to ask the Minister whether the Government have assessed the impact the requirement relaxations will have on listeners and local people, rather than just on the services themselves. It is important that communities and those who actually benefit from local radio services are taken into account.
Separate to the requirements on analogue services, the clause also provides the Government with the ability to introduce local news obligations on DAB radio services in the event that analogue services cease at some point in the future. It is my understanding that multiplex owners will be responsible for requiring that there is at least one digital local radio service that carries local news, rather than that being a direct obligation on the radio services themselves. Radiocentre, which represents the commercial radio sector, has said that it is sensible to introduce the powers to guarantee the provision of local news in the future. Indeed, I have already discussed how important local news is to local people.
Radiocentre has also shared that it is not entirely clear how that will work in practice. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain, in the event of the power, how multiplexes would decide which service must carry local news. Furthermore, in the event that the chosen service stops doing so, or goes out of business, how would the obligation be transferred to another service? Lastly, how would all that be enforced between Ofcom and the multiplex owners? What conversations has the Minister had with both Ofcom and the multiplex owners, including Arqiva, to ensure readiness when the time comes? The preservation of local news is very important, and I look forward to hearing some clarity on how the new system could work.
Finally, I tabled amendment 31 on what counts as local news, which was raised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. Indeed, the Committee noted that in 2017 the Government promised to provide greater legislative clarity on what local news actually meant, and stated that it would enable Ofcom to produce guidance in the policy area. However, the issue was never fully resolved, leading to Ofcom calling for clearer guidance regarding its responsibility to enforce the provision of locally gathered news.
In its submission to the Committee, Ofcom said:
“We think it is important the Bill is clear what is intended by this new requirement.”
In response, although the Government said that they accepted
“the principle that the definition and enforcement of the obligations on local radio to provide locally-gathered news could be clearer”,
there was a lack of detail on how they would put this principle into practice, other than references to some technical changes on the face of the Bill. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could talk us through the technical changes and how, or whether, they might be able to act as a replacement for full guidance on this issue. In the absence of such confirmation or detail in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report, I felt it important to raise the issue again. It seems like people from all parties in the House and, indeed, radio services and viewers alike can agree on the importance of local news and information, but if the new requirements on local news are not enforced properly, such unanimous agreement is futile. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Sir John Whittingdale
Perhaps I should start by outlining the purpose of clause 44, which makes changes to section 314 of the Communications Act to reflect the evolution of the market and the findings of the Government’s 2017 consultation on commercial radio deregulation.
In particular, it is clear from that consultation, and the steps taken since by Ofcom to relax its definition of locally made programming, that the requirements in this area are too onerous and are constraining the industry from rationalising its production base. This is making it harder for stations to compete effectively against new online services, so the clause removes the requirement for Ofcom to secure that stations provide a certain amount of programming from a studio within their coverage area. However, it is the case that local news and information remain of great importance to listeners, and their provision remains central to radio’s public value. Commercial radio’s local news provision plays an important role in ensuring plurality in the sector. Stations will, then, be specifically required to provide news that has been gathered within the area to which they broadcast.
The provisions do not require stations to directly employ journalists to gather local news. A station could, for example, enter into a partnership with a newspaper agency or a freelance journalist who gathers news in the local area. We also taking powers to apply the requirements to DAB services if there is a future shortage of available local news. This could take a variety of forms—for example, Ofcom could be required to impose conditions in local radio multiplex licences that require the multiplex operator to carry at least one digital radio station that carries local news and information. Alternatively, the multiplex operator could be required to reserve capacity on the multiplex for a radio service that carries local news and information. At the moment, many existing digital radio services are simulcast versions of analogue stations that carry local news and information, so we do not consider that there is currently a need to consider in detail how the powers would be exercised.
Amendment 31 seeks to add a requirement for the Government to publish statutory guidance on the interpretation of the clause, including on the meaning of “local news”. Ofcom would then need to have regard to that guidance in developing its own guidance for holders of local sound broadcast licences on how they are able to meet the new local news and information requirements as set out in the Bill.
Andy Carter
I want to press the Minister a little more on the requirement on the multiplex operator to deliver news services. If, for example, a multiplex is full, and contracted legal licences to deliver product for 10 years are already in place, but the operator now has a requirement to deliver news, how can they do that? They are not providing the service; they are contracting space to other radio operators. I am interested in the practical application of the Bill where a multiplex provider is required to ensure local news provision.
Sir John Whittingdale
That is a matter for Ofcom to determine. As I said, Ofcom will be able to ensure that a local radio multiplex, through its licence, can provide space for a local news service. For the moment, that might well be provided by the existing analogue service, but if we reached a point where none of the services wishing to go on to the multiplex provided a local news service, the operator could restrict remaining space on the multiplex, so that it is available if someone comes forward.
Andy Carter
In effect, Ofcom needs to change the licences of existing multiplex operators, because in the licences issued, I do not see a clause to say that they have to deliver news if that is not provided locally on an analogue service.
Sir John Whittingdale
The powers relate to future shortages. I suspect that we could not backdate the provisions to kick someone with a contract off a multiplex. Perhaps it would be helpful if I later provided a bit more information to the Committee on precisely how that would work.
To go back to the definition of “local news” in the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East, I understand that her purpose is to refine that definition and that of “locally gathered”, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary.
Rob Butler
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South on the Front Bench will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to add to the woes of the Government Chief Whip by supporting an Opposition amendment, but I want to press the Minister a little on what “local” means, and how it is to be interpreted. I gave an example from my area. What was intrinsically an Aylesbury radio station has been superseded by one with three counties in its name: Bucks, Beds and Herts. Are the people of Aylesbury to assume that “local” means anything from any one of those three counties, rather than one from their town? I wonder whether some form of guidance—not necessarily statutory—might be helpful as we move quickly to develop new audio-visual services in radio and television.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hope to provide my hon. Friend with further detail in my response to the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East. I take my hon. Friend’s point, however; people expect to hear local news, relevant to the place where they live. In some cases, the definition of local news seems to be stretched somewhat. This is not a debate about the BBC, but I am sure that it might crop up in our discussion.
Local news and information are not defined in section 314 of the Communications Act 2003. They are mentioned as elements of local “material” that Ofcom is required to secure as part of the licensing of local commercial radio. Ofcom is also required to
“draw up guidance as to how they consider the requirements…should be satisfied; and…have regard to that guidance in carrying out their functions”.
Clause 44 amends section 314, and enables Ofcom to impose local news requirements in stations’ licences. It also enables Ofcom to ensure that this local news includes “locally-gathered” news. The hon. Lady suggested that she wanted further clarity on the definition of local news, but the provisions include a definition of local news for the first time. Under clause 44(7), to be regarded as “locally gathered-news”, news will need to be gathered
“by persons who gather news in the course of an employment of business”—
in other words, by professional journalists. We considered whether there was a case for being even more specific about how much news should be provided, or the times of day when local news should be available, but we felt that it would be most beneficial to the effective operation of the licensing system for Ofcom to continue to have responsibility for drawing up guidance on how stations should meet requirements.
Ofcom will draw up guidance that will replace the existing local news guidance. That will ensure continuity, while retaining a degree of flexibility in an approach that has been taken ever since 2003. It must have regard to the new definition of local news, and the requirement for at least some of that local news to be “locally-gathered”. We do not think it is either necessary or helpful for the Bill to require the Government to provide guidance to Ofcom on drawing up its guidance.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On the point around Ofcom drawing up guidance, will Ofcom seek—and will the Government press it to—consultation with viewers, readers and listeners affected by these local changes, especially given that local newspapers are closing their doors across the country? It is so important that we have proper, accountable local news that is accessible to everybody.
Sir John Whittingdale
I would love to spend time debating the importance of local newspapers with the hon. Lady; it is a point on which I completely agree. I also share her concern about the disappearance of local newspapers in so many places, but that matter of concern is slightly outside this Bill. Nevertheless, she is right that it means that the remaining sources of local news become all the more important.
As she suggests, I would expect Ofcom to consult widely in local communities before it decides precisely how the guidance should work. We differ from the Opposition, however, in not thinking that it would be helpful to have two sets of guidance, one emanating from the Bill and the other from Ofcom. I think that would simply add to the complication and confusion, and we need Ofcom to be able to apply the new provisions across a wide range of stations with flexibility. The provisions, which include a requirement for at least some local news to be gathered locally, give a degree of clarification. I hope that on that basis, that the hon. Member for Barnsley East will withdraw her amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. My amendment was based on concerns put forward by Ofcom and the CMS Committee. The issue of, and debate around, local news is important. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North about consultation, although this debate is of course not about the BBC, we are all very familiar with its changes to local radio, which were made without any local consultation. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, the listeners from Barnsley who used to tune into BBC Radio Sheffield are now listening to programming for the entirety of Yorkshire. Obviously, that is a parallel issue not connected to this, but having local people involved in these decisions is really important. I hope that Ofcom is genuinely satisfied with the Minister’s comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment accordingly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Financial assistance for radio
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
The clause amends section 359 of the Communications Act 2003 to give the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance for, or in connection with, the provision of community radio, commercial radio services and audio production. It is a technical amendment.
The covid-19 pandemic provided an illustration of circumstances in which the Government may need to make grants directly to radio stations, potentially on an urgent basis. In particular, during the pandemic the Government relied on the funding powers found in section 70 of the Charities Act 1993 and common law powers, in conjunction with section 86 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, to provide funding in relation to various radio services. However, relying on provisions such as section 70 of the Charities Act and common law powers is not always straightforward; it requires a considerable amount of legal and policy analysis to establish whether the relevant power is available for the need identified.
The purpose of the clause is therefore to make it explicit that radio stations and audio producers, whether their content is for on-demand or broadcast access, as well as those who facilitate the transmission of radio and audio content, can benefit from potential future grant schemes. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
As I have spoken at length about my support for radio services, it will come as no surprise that I welcome the power for the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the provision of such services. The measure is welcomed by AudioUK and Radiocentre, which ran a successful three-year pilot of the audio content fund. I understand that that came to an end, having previously been funded through the TV licence fee, but I hope that the measure will make it easier for the Department to support like-minded projects directly in future, where needed.
Does the Department have any plans to use the provisions? If so, how? The answer to that question is of interest not just to those who seek to benefit from this new opportunity, but to those benefiting from other funding pots. Indeed, the UK Community Radio Network has shared with me its concern that the commitment would be delivered off the back of funding currently allocated to the community radio fund. The UK Community Radio Network says that opening up the fund to more broadcasters could have negative consequences for the sector. Will the Minister clarify whether the aim of the clause is to expand the community radio fund?
Many colleagues spoke in support of local TV on Second Reading. Local TV forms a vital part of the wider television ecology and makes a great contribution to communities up and down the country. The Local TV Network has also been in touch with me to share that, although it is not seeking financial assistance, it would have liked a similar clause for local television to have enabled an increase in local programming or expansion of geographic coverage. Did the Department consider such a clause during the development of the Bill? It would be good to hear the Minister’s response, particularly given that the Bill does not give local TV the same prominence benefits as our public service broadcasters.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady raises a number of issues. I remain a great supporter of the audio content fund, which was created when I was first in the Department and responsible for the renewal of the BBC charter. Of course, the audio content fund, along with the young audiences content fund, was funded for a time through licence fee money. It did a good job, but at the moment there is no plan to resurrect it. I remain a great supporter of community radio, and certainly there are no plans to raid the community radio fund for that purpose either. The clause creates a general power that will make it much simpler for us to provide grants directly to radio stations or for the transmission of radio, but I regret that at the moment there is no immediate prospect of doing so.
The hon. Lady touched on local television. I met local TV representatives yesterday. The Government will shortly announce the result of the consultation on the renewal of licences for local TV. I remain supportive of local TV. We continue to discuss issues around prominence with local TV representatives. Again, I am afraid that there is no current likelihood of our being able to provide financial assistance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Licensing of non-UK digital sound programme services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
This clause makes changes to sections 245 and 402 of the Communications Act. It enables overseas digital radio services to be provided on a local or small-scale multiplex, where their country of origin has been specified in regulations. The Secretary of State intends to specify Ireland as a qualifying country, with the effect that RTÉ—the Irish national broadcaster—and other Irish commercial and community radio station operators can apply for digital licences for their radio services, and ultimately for those services to be broadcast in the UK. This simply removes an unnecessary restriction on Ofcom’s ability to license well regulated overseas stations, in contrast to similar TV services targeted at the UK. That was raised in the Government’s 2017 consultation on radio deregulation.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause allows the Secretary of State, by regulation, to specify a country in which international digital radio services can come under Ofcom’s regulation and be broadcast in the UK, as the Minister outlined. I understand, as he said, that this was done with the intention of specifying Ireland as a qualifying country first, so that Irish radio services can apply for digital licences for broadcast in the UK. When this issue was consulted on back in 2017, the majority of respondents were in favour of allowing this, particularly in the case of Ireland; the station RTÉ was identified as long having been important to members of the Irish community living in the UK.
While there must always be careful consideration of the spectrum available and the need to ensure a diversity of UK-based services, I see no reason why selected non-UK stations of particular importance to those living in the UK cannot complement UK services. Indeed, these non-UK services may be uniquely placed to attract new audiences to radio and subsequently advertisers and sponsors. It is due to those same concerns about prioritising UK services, however, that it seems the Government have opted to take a gradual approach to the change, allowing the Secretary of State to specify one country at a time, rather than opening things up more broadly. This gradual approach has perhaps been even more gradual than expected, given the five-year gap between consultation and the Bill.
Could the Minister share with us whether the Department has any intention of specifying countries other than Ireland under the clause? For example, does the Secretary of State intend to extend this arrangement to any other station’s licence, in the EU or beyond? I am pleased to support the clause, but I am keen to hear an update on whether there are plans to actually use it.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady is right that, at the moment, the demand is primarily from Ireland. If there were to be significant demand from other countries, this would need to be reviewed in the context of views from industry and advice from Ofcom. The regulations would then be in the form of an affirmative order, which would need to be laid before the House, but there is no current intention of doing that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Radio multiplex licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
This clause updates provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1996 to remove Ofcom’s function of overseeing the line-ups of national and local radio multiplexes, in light of the Government’s 2017 consultation on commercial radio deregulation and the responses to it. As long as applicants for a multiplex licence can demonstrate that they are able to provide a sustainable service with sufficient geographic coverage, and that they will enable fair and effective competition, they will otherwise be free to decide the number and nature of the radio stations they carry. This change reflects the availability of a wide range of stations across the UK, and will allow for simpler arrangements between multiplex operators and Ofcom.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 47 continues the deregulation of requirements on radio, this time simplifying radio multiplex licence applications. In effect, this means that Ofcom will no longer have to oversee the line-up of national and local radio multiplexes, other than by ensuring that there is regard for sustainability and competition. Again, when this was consulted on in 2017, most respondents agreed that there was no longer a need for Ofcom to oversee station line-ups on multiplexes and approve changes. As I have said multiple times, the need to oversee the content and diversity of radio services has decreased significantly since the introduction of a vast range of digital services. I believe this relaxation of requirements, therefore, should not have any negative effects on the range of services available for audiences in the UK, with their different tastes, needs and preferences.
As we come to the end of our consideration of the provisions on regulation of radio services, I reiterate my support for radio services, which provide so much to audiences. I am pleased that this package of long-awaited changes will finally be implemented, and I hope that the future of radio is protected for years to come. That hopefully leads us nicely to the next part of the Bill, which we will debate next week.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)
Media Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 7th December 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Media Act 2024 View all Media Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 December 2023 - (7 Dec 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Order. Before we begin, I remind Members to please send any speaking notes to Hansard at hansardnotes@parliament.uk—they will be very grateful. I also remind Members to please switch all devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not permissible in this sitting.
Clause 28
Prominence on television selection services
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 28, page 37, line 4, at end insert—
“(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would make the Secretary of State’s power to designate regulated television selection services subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 28, page 40, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) When preparing guidance under subsection (1), OFCOM must have regard to the strategy and policy published by the BBC pursuant to clause 62 of the Agreement between Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, dated 7 November 2016, as that clause may be amended or updated at any time.”
This amendment requires OFCOM explicitly to consider the relevant parts of the BBC’s regulatory framework when setting its guidance for the new prominence regime under subsection (1) of 362AL.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 3.
Stephanie Peacock
I am pleased to be starting part 2 of the Bill today. Indeed, an update to the prominence regime is arguably the most anticipated of all the Bill’s measures, and I am certainly keen to see it come into force.
As I have spoken about many times already, our public service broadcasters are the cornerstone of our broadcasting sector in the UK, investing billions in original productions and creating content that is trusted, valuable and entertaining for UK audiences. Historically, in return for the high standard of programming and investment that public service broadcasters provide, their channels have been made easy to find on linear television sets—to the benefit of audiences across the country. However, amid rapid changes in how viewers access television and content more generally, the prominence regime, which has not been updated for decades, is at increasing risk of becoming diluted and outdated.
As ITV identified in its submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the major risks are twofold. First, public service broadcasters are in danger of being cut out of view, as global content players and platforms strike international deals with online platforms for prominence. Secondly, as a result, our public service broadcasters are at risk of being forced to concede increasingly material percentages of their revenue to these platforms, simply to appear on them. In this situation, it seems like almost everyone loses out—from audiences, to the wider UK production economy, to even the platforms themselves, which may find themselves in a position where they cannot promote the content that UK viewers most want to see. A new prominence framework for the digital era, therefore, was always going to be crucial.
The next question to answer was how prescriptive such a new regime would be in legislation. I am pleased that, in response to this, the Government have avoided explicitly spelling out what prominence looks like in the Bill, or making primary legislation restrictive or resistant to future changes in technology and behaviour. Instead, we have before us a principles-based approach based on finding mutually beneficial carriage deals between what is branded “designated internet programme services” and “regulated television selection services”, with Ofcom being able to provide a framework in which these negotiations can operate.
That is then backed up by a strong dispute resolution and enforcement powers for Ofcom, including the ability to improve significant penalties in the result of non-compliance. This allows for maximum flexibility in both legislation and negotiations, as well as proper protections where agreements cannot be reached. It also allows for the regime to be expanded where necessary to capture new technology that people might be watching television content on. Platforms and PSBs have a history of successful negotiations, creating mutually beneficial deals and partnerships that would be counterintuitive for the prominence regime to undermine.
With that in mind, I am glad that the Department has made a few changes to the initial drafting of the Bill, in particular regarding the agreement objectives that are designed to incentivise the agreement of appropriate terms between platforms and PSBs. The original phrasing had concerned both parties. For PSBs, there were fears that the stated focus on costs would see platforms making unfavourable demands on advertising and data. For the platforms, there was concern that the phrasing could imply a responsibility on their behalf to cover the cost of PSBs. The new phrasing, which looks at the provision of public service content to audiences in the round, will hopefully alleviate some of these worries.
It is also welcome that there has been a clarification over legacy devices. It is important that technical feasibility is taken into account when deciding which devices are designated as being in scope of the regime. I would, however, like to ask for some clarity on the requirement to secure “appropriate” prominence. This was a major topic of discussion during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, with the majority of PSBs calling for this to be upgraded to “significant” prominence. The arguments around this were mostly based on the differences between linear and digital streaming landscapes.
On a traditional television set, appropriate prominence has, in practice, meant a fixed and high slot on programme guides—a relatively straightforward goal to achieve. However, the BBC said in its evidence that it has still sometimes struggled to secure high listings for its children’s channels on linear televisions. Likewise, S4C noted that it remained channel 166 on Virgin Media in Wales until 2021 due to a wide interpretation of the word “appropriate”. On streaming sticks and smart TVs, however, there is an ambiguity as to what appropriate prominence should provide in practice, especially given the many ways one programme might be reached within only one such device. Therefore, for the regime to have its intended impact, the argument is that significant prominence will be needed to ensure that public service content is easy to find on every necessary interface. That was also recommended by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, I am aware that Sky and others have expressed that there may be some unintended consequences to upgrading to significant prominence, particularly because of the risk of overriding consumer choice and preference.
Will the Minister provide a full response to the argument for significant prominence and outline the reasons why the prominence requirement has not been upgraded? Further, what conversations have been had with Ofcom on how the detail of the regime will be set out in the code of practice to ensure that it meets its aims? As I will go on to say throughout the Bill’s passage, we need a strongly empowered Ofcom if this Bill is to be a success.
On a similar note, Will the Minister tell me whether the Department has considered the possibility of including remote controls and multi-use devices in the prominence regime? I know that is something the BBC has consistently called for. Its latest thinking is that electronic programme guides could be given a prominent button on remotes, rather than one PSB in particular. Although my priority remains to see this clause passed, we must explore these questions to make sure that we are fully seizing this once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that public service content is easily findable in a digital age.
I will also take this opportunity to briefly discuss the role of regional prominence. Before I continue, I want to reassure colleagues that I do not mean to imply through the use of the phrase “regional prominence” that Wales and Scotland are regions, rather than nations in their own right. I use that terminology because that is how the Bill refers to prominence arrangements that will be required for the likes of S4C and STV, as well as other, genuinely regional services provided by our PSBs. For those broadcasters and their respective audiences in Scotland and Wales, proper prominence will be absolutely crucial. That is perhaps even more so the case when we consider that S4C simply cannot match the promotion budgets of those that dominate streaming platforms, yet it provides a unique service in the Welsh language that others simply do not.
However, some platforms have raised concerns over the technical feasibility of ensuring regional prominence. For example, techUK has said that technical and privacy challenges mean that providing regional variation in prominence would be a disproportionate burden. As a result, S4C has raised concerns that user selection might be used in lieu of guaranteed prominence. That would be quite different to the envisaged package of benefits that the prominence regime would provide for PSBs.
First, will the Minister first reaffirm that the Bill does not require regional prominence for S4C, STV and other regional programming that our PSBs provide? Secondly, will he update us on what discussions his Department has had with both Ofcom and platforms on how this requirement on regional prominence will be enforced and adhered to on a practical level? I know that the detail of what is required will become clear when Ofcom’s code is published after the Bill, but some baseline reassurances are needed now to clarify whether changes are needed to primary legislation to secure the kind of prominence we had all envisaged for the likes of S4C. The Bill must empower Ofcom as much as it can. Regional prominence goes to the very heart of why these changes are being made in the first place, and it is vital that its inclusion in the Bill is in no way compromised or diluted.
Finally, I will address my two technical amendments to this clause. First, I suggested an amendment that changes the power of the Secretary of State to designate or specify a description of regulated television selection services from the negative procedure to the affirmative. As the CMS Committee report recognises, although the Secretary of State can only designate services deemed to be used by a significant number of viewers, and must receive a report from Ofcom, the Minister can still make a decision that goes against Ofcom’s recommendations. Given that, it seems sensible that their decision should be open to greater parliamentary scrutiny.
Too many Bills coming through this Parliament have given sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, as the Minister and I discussed at length during the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Though such measures are sometimes needed to futureproof a regime, it is absolutely crucial to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny is not seen as an onerous task to be bypassed, but an important part of shaping good policies. With that in mind, I would like to see the affirmative procedure used in this case.
Secondly, the BBC has raised concern that the new framework creates a level playing field for licensed public service broadcasters in a way that it does not for the BBC. Indeed, the BBC is required under its framework agreement to publish a distribution policy, outlining the conditions under which it makes its services available. The conditions include securing appropriate prominence, quality and value for money. The BBC is also legally required to offer services to third parties without charge and on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
The Media Bill largely recognises that the BBC has a distinct regulatory framework—no less so than in this very clause, where it is made clear that there will be no additional “must offer” obligations on the BBC given its equivalent obligations. However, though there is explicit reference to the BBC’s “must offer” duties in the Bill, there is no matching reference to the BBC’s charter and framework agreement in the “must carry” section of the Bill. Both a “must carry” and a “must offer” requirement are needed to create the conditions for PSBs and platforms to have successful negotiations on prominence from a level playing field. The exclusion of comprehensive “must carry” requirements on platforms when it comes to the BBC may therefore make such negotiations harder. That is particularly worrying given the BBC says it already faces increasing difficulty when negotiating with some platforms that have little interest in supporting UK PSBs. It says global platforms, in particular, are more focused on self-preferencing their own content, monetising user interfaces and controlling data and algorithms.
My amendment would seek to rectify that inequality in the Bill. It would give the BBC an equivalent negotiating position to the commercial broadcasters, setting out that any regulated platform must also act consistently with the charter and framework agreement. That is hopefully a largely technical change to ensure no unintended consequences that could put the BBC at a disadvantage. My absolute priority on prominence is to ensure that the new measures are brought into force, but it is also important that we take the opportunity to ensure the new regime is as robust and effective as possible while we still have the chance.
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
This section of the Bill on prominence is a central part of the changes the Government wish to make. Although the hon. Lady has done a good job setting out the reasons we decided it necessary to update the prominence requirements, I hope she will forgive me if I recap them since I think it is important that the Government’s position is set out in some detail.
As the hon. Lady described, the objective of the UK system of public service broadcasting is to ensure that public service content is readily available to as wide an audience as possible and is easy to find. PSB prominence plays a crucial role in delivering that. In doing so, it boosts viewership and engagement, which are important to sustain advertising revenue and brand value for PSBs. In turn, that ensures they can continue to deliver the high-quality original programming that UK viewers expect. PSBs receive the benefit of prominence in recognition of the additional obligations placed on them, such as news and current affairs provision, and that has become known as the PSB compact.
However, the existing regulatory framework for ensuring carriage and prominence of PSB channels, set out in the Communications Act 2003, does not extend to the PSBs’ on-demand services, nor services other than electronic programme guides that enable viewers to navigate and select TV programmes. Audiences increasingly watch TV online and, in many cases, bypass traditional distribution platforms altogether, so without the new prominence frame- work, we risk undermining the long-term sustainability of the PSB system in the UK. All PSBs have been calling for an update for some time.
Clause 28 introduces a new online prominence framework for PSB apps, referred to in the Bill as “designated internet programme services”, wherever they appear on particular user interfaces, referred to as “regulated television selection services”. The framework is principles-based to ensure that regulation is proportionate and adaptable for the future without negatively impacting consumer choice and experiences. This approach to regulation aligns with the consistent feedback we have had from stakeholders on both sides through our engagement with them on this issue.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
A lot of the existing regime, and also a lot of what is in the Bill, is based on the assumption that as many people as possible will seek to be designated as a public service broadcaster and will do everything they can to keep that designation. Is there not a danger now that if prominence is not effective enough, PSBs will simply decline to be PSBs, with all the obligations that being a PSB places on them, and just seek to make programmes that are popular and that will therefore be recommended and promoted on smart devices? Is my right hon. Friend confident that Ofcom will have the ability to issue guidance that distributors of programmes may need to increase the prominence of public broadcasting if they are not doing so already?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I have sympathy with the concern he expresses. However, if this Bill was not passed, the advantages of being a public service broadcaster would be very small. All the PSBs have made it clear that they regard prominence as an essential benefit of the compact, in order that they are easily found and accessible. Because they have laid such stress on that, we assume that it is still their wish to remain designated as PSBs.
It is, of course, up to any PSB to walk away from the compact if they chose to do so. In doing so, they would no longer necessarily be able to benefit from prominence and the other advantages that come with PSB designation. However, I know that both my hon. Friend and I believe that there is a continuing need for public service broadcasting in this country. One of the purposes of the Bill is exactly to address the point he makes, by ensuring that PSB designation is still an attractive proposition for broadcasters to seek.
Let me return to one or two details of precisely how the system will operate. Once the necessary internet programme services and regulated television selection service providers have been designated, new sections 362AJ to 362AN introduce new rules to ensure the availability of public service content. That is achieved by requiring providers to offer their designated IPSs to RTSS providers and requiring RTSS providers to carry these designated services. After all, prominence would be redundant if the PSB services are not on the platform to begin with.
These availability requirements will be underpinned by statutory agreement objectives that providers of designated IPSs and RTSSs must act consistently with when reaching an agreement on the availability and prominence of designated services and when keeping that agreement in force. These include that the arrangements support the sustainability of public service broadcasting and do not disproportionately restrict how the platform may innovate its service. The intention behind these agreement objectives is for Parliament to provide expectations for the outcome of negotiations between designated IPS providers and RTSS providers. These objectives are to be supplemented by more detailed Ofcom guidance on how providers may act consistently with them.
In that respect, let me address the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East in her amendment 29. Proposed new section 362AL requires Ofcom to
“prepare…guidance about how providers of designated internet programme services and providers of regulated television selection services may act consistently with the agreement objectives”
when negotiating on the carriage and prominence of designated services and after an agreement has been reached. The Government absolutely recognise that Ofcom’s guidance should take into account the BBC’s equivalent duties under the framework agreement, as also reflected in its relevant strategies and policies under the agreement, including clause 62. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that proposed new section 362AL(2) already provides for such considerations by Ofcom by referring to
“any duty of the BBC under the BBC Charter and Agreement that is comparable to the duty of providers of designated internet programme services other than the BBC”.
This may be a good opportunity to expand on another point. By convention, the BBC is not regulated in statute. It is the Government’s intention for the new prominence framework to apply to the BBC through the framework agreement. We plan to work at pace with the BBC to make corresponding changes to the its framework agreement to ensure that the relevant parts of the prominence regime apply to the BBC, while also acknowledging how it legally functions. It is the Government’s view that there is already provision in the Bill for Ofcom to consider the BBC’s comparable duties and corresponding policies under its framework agreement in its guidance on the agreement objectives. It is for that reason that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley East.
Overall, we think the principles-based approach that we are taking, with Ofcom playing a vital role, is the correct one. It will give Ofcom the tools it needs to ensure that the regime is functioning effectively without being too inflexible or overly prescriptive. Once designated services are available on the platform in question, new sections 362A0 to 362AR introduce specific duties on providers of RTSSs, including the requirement to carry and display designated IPSs with an appropriate degree of prominence. That includes the requirement to carry and give regional prominence to designated S4C services in Wales and STV services in relevant parts of Scotland.
Stephanie Peacock
I asked the Minister to reaffirm that it does not require regional prominence. Obviously, I am very keen to hear that it does because I know that there are some concerns, particularly from S4C, that it might do so in theory but not in practice.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am happy to address that point. The hon. Lady also raised the subject, which was debated on Second Reading and in the Select Committee, of whether the requirement for “appropriate prominence” is a better description than “significant prominence”. That is something we looked at carefully, particularly as it was one of the Select Committee’s recommendations, but we feel that it is important that the approach to regulation should be proportionate and allow for flexibility and operability across different RTSSs. We believe that an appropriate level of prominence, as determined by Ofcom in the code of practice, provides that flexibility and enables Ofcom to implement the regime in a practical way.
Damian Collins
Does the Minister agree that, given the nature of new smart devices, which favour personalisation of content and recommendations to users, smaller regional broadcasters, such as S4C, may benefit significantly, because viewers who have a habit of watching programming in the Welsh language are far more likely to be recommended that programming in the future?
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is right. As he says, the technology in this area is evolving very rapidly, so it is important that the regulatory framework is sufficiently flexible to keep up to date with technology as it arises. His point is that we are moving towards viewers having greater and greater control not only of what they watch, but of what comes up as recommendations for them to watch, and can choose which channels appear, and that will continue to evolve. It is therefore important that Ofcom can take account of technology developments in the framework.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Minister and the shadow spokesperson have been talking about regional content in respect of national content for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is incredibly important that viewers in the regions are able to access regional news and information. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent upon service providers such as ITV and the BBC to ensure that, when people access their services, it is very easy to find that regional content? Geolocation is particularly helpful, because it will recognise the user’s postcode, but there needs to be a requirement for public service broadcasters to ensure that it is easy to be set up, so that people can access their local area. That would certainly benefit the service providers, who we all know always talk to us about the strength of their services, such as the number of viewers who watch Granada and other services in the regions. Does the Minister agree that it really comes down to ensuring that the public service broadcasters have those things set up properly and prominently in their apps?
Sir John Whittingdale
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As I said—and as the hon. Lady the Member for Barnsley East mentioned in her remarks—the issue of regional prominence is important. It is our view that we should replicate the current regional prominence arrangements under the linear regime in the online space, given that the nations and regions are a core component of PSBs. We designed the regime to give Ofcom the discretion to determine various ways of delivering appropriate prominence across different platforms, and that includes delivering regionally.
We expect that Ofcom will set out different options, depending on what would be proportionate and reasonable for RTSSs to deliver, having regard to technical considerations. One method, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South suggested, would be to ask the viewer to submit a postcode at the time that their smart TV or other device is first set up. That would be sufficient to enable regional prominence. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to submit their views on how regional prominence should be delivered in due course, when Ofcom consults on the code.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that part of this is about viewer or listener choice? For example, my phone would currently geolocate me in London, but I might be far more interested in listening to—and I do, actually—BBC Radio Devon or watching the evening news back in Devon and Cornwall, than I might be in the content based purely on the location. That is the point. The types of choices now available to viewers would have been unimaginable in the era before IT, when we were merely relying on broadcast signals.
Sir John Whittingdale
As I said earlier, the Bill does not, at the moment, suggest that prominence should be required on mobile phones, because they are not primarily used for watching TV, but the point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely correct. More and more applications and devices are going to be influenced by the location from which they are being used. It will therefore become more important that TVs and all other devices are clearly geolocated in order to allow appropriate prominence of regional programming.
Proposed new sections 362AT to 362AY give Ofcom a dispute resolution function, should negotiations between providers of designated IPSs and RTSSs fail. Our overall intention is to allow PSBs and platforms to pursue mutually beneficial commercial arrangements in the first instance, but if that is not possible, it is appropriate for the regulator to have the necessary powers to intervene in support of effective negotiations.
In addition, proposed new sections 362AZ to 362AZ11 provide Ofcom with the necessary powers to enforce the new prominence framework, which include information-gathering powers and the power to issue notices requiring the provider to take remedial steps and/or pay a financial penalty in the event of a breach. Many of the providers we are talking about are large, sometimes global, organisations, and it is important that Ofcom feels confident that it can take robust enforcement action when required.
Schedule 3 contains further changes to the Communications Act 2003, which are required as a consequence of the new provisions inserted by clause 28. Taken together, we believe that the provisions in the clause will deliver, for the first time, a new, much-needed and bespoke prominence regime to ensure the availability and discovery of PSB content online to the benefit of audiences and PSBs alike. I hope hon. Members will support the clause, and I ask the hon. Member for Barnsley East to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I agree with the Minister that the clause creates a new and bespoke prominence regime. I have some questions that I was going to ask in interventions, but I figured that I had too many.
I am happy to support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister relating to the BBC and affirmative approval by the House, but I have some questions arising from the comments that have been made. The comment about personalisation is key. I hope that people who regularly watch S4C, for example, will be offered it. I am slightly concerned that that will conflict with the commercial nature of these devices, and that we will end up in a situation whereby Amazon provides more money to give prominence to a certain television show, which bumps S4C down the list. I am glad that there is flexibility in the Bill to allow things to be updated and changes to be made, because it is important that such conflicts are resolved.
Damian Collins
What may resolve that conflict is the fact that personalisation is often linked to the placement of advertising, so the platform operator may only care about advertising reaching eyeballs and may be agnostic about whether it is placed against S4C content or anyone else’s.
Kirsty Blackman
That is possibly the case. I have never been a platform managing its budget on the basis of advertising, so I do not know exactly how the advertising regime works. As time goes on and the way that people interact with these services changes, that may be updated anyway, provided that there is the flexibility to make changes if we find that people are not being served the content that we expect, and are not receiving that level of prominence of the services. It would be great if the new regime works and people are algorithmically served the content that they like and want to see, but I am concerned that it might not always work out like that. It would therefore be incredibly helpful if the Minister can keep that under review.
On the comments about the words “significant” and “appropriate”, I completely understand the BBC’s concerns. I know that not everybody feels quite so strongly about those words. Some people believe that Ofcom will be clear that “appropriate” means “fairly significant” and “quite prominent”, so that people are able to access these broadcasters. Again, the Government need to keep that under review to ensure that there is an appropriate level of prominence, and that Ofcom has the ability and strength to say, “This is not appropriate. We need it to be more prominent than it currently is.” Ofcom must have the teeth to enforce that. It should first work with the platforms to ensure prominence—we do not want to move straight to enforcement—so that people can access the public service broadcasters that they expect.
The comments made about television remote controls were also key, and we might come back to them later in relation to radio selection. Hardware is an issue as well as software. For example, a television remote control may allow people to press a Netflix button but not a BBC button, despite the fact that significant proportions of people would prefer to press a button to access the BBC, STV or whatever service they are keen to get, and that they generally go to for information. I have spoken already about the importance of accessibility. Public service broadcasters need to be accessible, and we must work with people to make PSBs as accessible as possible, and prominent; those are two separate but related things.
Local content and local news content are very important. Yesterday, I had a discussion with the BBC, which now provides Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire local bulletins on some of its on-demand services, after a long-running campaign by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and me. We have both been constantly pestering the BBC to ensure that our local news bulletins are accessible, particularly so that we can see what is being reported in our local area when we are down here. The BBC has now done that, but I would like commensurate prominence for online and on-demand television services, as well as services on my phone or computer.
On a related note, the Minister talked about the measures applying only to devices that have the main purpose of allowing people to watch television, and I can understand why he has gone down that route. I do not know whether he is aware of Ofcom’s “Media nations” report, which shows that 21% of TV users in Scotland watch through a games console. That is not an insignificant proportion. Some family members may use the games console to game, but others may use it only to watch television. If games consoles are outside the regulatory regime and are not required to give any prominence to public service broadcasters, a chunk of the population is not being properly served and does not have proper access to public service broadcasters.
I appreciate the Minister’s comment about Ofcom being able to update and make changes to the regulated services and providers. However, I am slightly concerned that he has gone too far down the route of saying that the measures apply to devices that are mainly used for television purposes. I am concerned that that will not provide my constituents with the best service, particularly when the percentage of people in Scotland who use games consoles to watch television is double that in England. The proportion is much higher, so this issue will be important. For example, if someone can watch television on a PlayStation, why would they waste money on a Fire Stick? They can already watch television through the games console. If that is the main route by which a not insignificant portion of people watch television, it is important that the Minister considers whether regulating games consoles would improve our constituents’ lives. I genuinely think it would. My concern is mostly that the Minister should not rule it out; I do not necessarily want him to say that he will definitely regulate things such as games consoles.
My other question, which the Minister may not be able to answer today, is about the prominence requirements for smart TV provision. If I say to my Fire TV Cube, “Alexa, play BBC News on BBC iPlayer,” I would expect it to do that. Provisions we come to later relate to asking a smart speaker to play something on a certain provider. That is about not just prominence on screen, but prominence when I use my voice to make a request of my Fire Cube. I hope and expect that Ofcom and the Government intend that I will get BBC News on BBC iPlayer, if that is what I ask my smart TV for. This is about not just navigating the system, but being able to make a request by voice.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I will not repeat the points made by Members on both sides of the Committee, with which I agree. Briefly, I welcome the provision under proposed new section 362AA(7)(a) to the Communications Act 2003 that
“OFCOM must have regard…to the contribution that the internet programme service will make towards fulfilling the public service remit”
of PSBs, and S4C in particular. As I said on Tuesday, and as I am sure that I will say again when we come to discuss clause 32, S4C is a national, not regional, broadcaster in Wales. It is a separate, independent broadcasting service, much like BBC1 and ITV1. Broadcasting in Wales through S4C is not niche; it offers a wide range of broadcasting, from sport and drama to stand-up and gardening. In fact, through its range of programmes, it can and does extend people’s knowledge and surprise them. One of the things that has always surprised me about BBC news provided through S4C is the range of international reports in Welsh from all parts of the world., sometimes from professional journalists, but also from Welsh people who happen to be wherever the incident or news item is. That extends people’s horizons. S4C is not niche, and not parochial in any sense, so its content must be readily discoverable and prominent on television services, wherever they are.
It is difficult to find out how many Welsh speakers there are outside Wales. The census does not ask that, but it is reckoned that there are at least 100,000 Welsh speakers in England. A rather more interesting proxy for the figure is the fact that quite recently, Welsh was the most popular language to learn on Duolingo. In 2023, some 3 million people had registered, one way or another, to learn Welsh on Duolingo—that is probably more people learning Welsh outside Wales than there are people living in Wales. The extent of it may be learning to say “bore da”—good morning—but that is still interesting. I seek reassurance that “appropriate degree of prominence” in proposed new section 362AO will not lead to S4C being limited to specific audiences, for the reasons I have set out.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am most grateful to hon. Members for raising a number of interesting questions. The general answer to them is that these matters need to be considered by Ofcom when it draws up the details. However, I can seek to address one or two of the points made. On the continuing discussion about “appropriate” versus “significant”, I will try not to repeat our maxim that “significant” may be appropriate, but “appropriate” does not necessarily always mean significant—hopefully I got that right. For instance, there is the issue around S4C. Obviously, if someone lives in Wales, then S4C prominence is appropriate. If someone lives in Chelmsford and is learning Welsh, then perhaps it might become appropriate, as the hon. Member for Arfon set out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made a point about algorithms, and basing prominence on behaviour as well as geolocation. If someone regularly turns to, and finds, S4C, it is an indication that they are interested in Welsh language television. That might well be taken into account in the prominence regime, but that is a matter for Ofcom. The technology may not yet have reached that point, but I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point that geolocation does not necessarily deliver sufficient prominence for each individual viewer.
On the question that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about PSB buttons on remote controls, she is right that one or two of the streaming services pay to have their own button. My remote control has a Netflix button. I think it would be quite difficult to have a PSB button, because PSB obviously covers quite a wide range of broadcasters. It would not be right to say, “You’ve got to have a BBC button”; in a sense, the whole of the point of the legislation is to ensure that we do not need to do that. The prominence regime is designed not to force people to watch PSBs, but just to make them easily findable, so that when someone turns on their television, the first thing they see is the range of PSB channels as suggestions. If that is delivered, we do not necessarily need a button. Netflix presumably paid to have a button because it does not automatically pop up when someone turns on their television, but it will only be pressed by those who choose to watch Netflix. I do not think a button is necessary.
The hon. Lady also raised the interesting question of television-like devices. My children had an Xbox, and because it was constantly plugged in, we used it to access TV, rather than having to remove all the wires. She is absolutely right that in some families, the games console may well be frequently used to access television. That too is something that Ofcom will need to take into account. She asks that I make it clear that it is not ruled out, and I am happy to do that. We have asked Ofcome to look into those issues and draw up what is appropriate. It came as something of a surprise to me to read in my guidance notes that people can watch television on their refrigerator in some cases. I am not necessarily suggesting that it would be appropriate to give the BBC prominence on a refrigerator. All those things are matters that Ofcom will need to consider.
Damian Collins
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a distinction needs to be drawn between internet-connected devices—through which BBC iPlayer or the ITV hub or whatever it is can be accessed—and a smart television, which displays multiple different TV providers in the same place? On the latter, the user is not necessarily going to a separate place on the internet to watch something; they are going to one place, where these things are held together. It is in that environment that we want to ensure that the public broadcasters have due prominence.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More and more devices have screens, but they are not necessarily primarily or even occasionally used for watching television, so it would be completely wrong to include them within scope. However, there will be a variety of possible devices for watching TV, and Ofcom will need to look at that.
Kirsty Blackman
On the PlayStation, the user can click on all the games, but they also have a TV button they can click on, which takes them to a screen like that on a smart television, showing each of the different apps. This is similar to what the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe was saying: there will be a view of all the different apps, and then the user can choose from them. They are not all set out separately, in amongst the games. I feel it would be easy to regulate this, if the Minister and the Government felt that it was important to do so, particularly given the number of people for whom consoles are their main source of television use.
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Lady makes an absolutely fair point. I hope Ofcom will look into that as it draws up the rules. Finally, on the point about voice activation, she is right that I can talk to my television set without even needing to pick up a remote control. Again, it is an obligation of Ofcom’s to consider appropriate prominence in that respect, and I am sure that it will take that into account.
Stephanie Peacock
I hope the BBC is reassured by the Minister’s explanation. I am happy not to press amendment 29 to a Division. This has been a useful debate, involving Members on both sides of the room, and it was particularly good to note the points about TV remote controls and gaming, which affect so many of the population.
On amendment 21, I continue to disagree with the Minister on the use of the affirmative procedure. For that reason, I would like to vote on it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir John Whittingdale
This chapter of the Bill relates to Channel 4 and is perhaps a little less contentious than it originally might have been.
Channel 4 is a vital part of the UK’s world-renowned system of public service broadcasting. For over 40 years it has commissioned innovative and distinctive content that reflects and shapes our culture, but like all our PSBs, Channel 4 faces structural changes in the broadcasting landscape. Changing consumption habits are making audiences more fragmented and harder to reach than ever before; at the same time, competition for viewers, programmes and talent is increasing at a rapid pace. The Government want Channel 4 not only to survive these changes but to seize the opportunities that they present. That is why in January this year the Government set out a package of reforms to support Channel 4’s long- term sustainability while remaining in public ownership.
Clause 29 takes forward the first element of the sustainability package: a new duty on the Channel 4 board to consider the corporation’s long-term sustainability as part of its decision making alongside delivery of the Channel 4 remit. The existing obligations on the corporation and its board are focused on the Channel 4 service—its continued provision and the fulfilment of its public service remit—and on the discharge of its duties in relation to media content. There is currently no formal requirement in legislation for the corporation to consider its financial sustainability and long-term success, although this kind of consideration may already be occurring informally.
The wording used in the clause is similar to the directors’ duty in section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which places a duty on company directors, among other things, to promote the success of the company, and in doing so to have regard, among other matters, to the likely consequences of any decision in the longer term. The wording for the duty builds on that of the 2006 Act by using language that is appropriate for Channel 4; in particular, it reflects the fact that Channel 4 is a statutory corporation with board members but no shareholders, as opposed to a Companies Act limited company.
Stephanie Peacock
I will begin by discussing clause 31, which I think requires a bit more attention, before briefly addressing clauses 29 and 30. In perhaps the most significant of the changes made to Channel 4 throughout the Bill, clause 31 ends the restriction on Channel 4 that means it cannot be involved in the making of any programmes that it broadcasts.
Before I speak in a little more detail about the clause, I want to take the opportunity to set some context. I welcome the fact that an even more significant measure has not made its way into the Bill, as the Minister alluded to. The Government’s initial plans to privatise Channel 4 would have been disastrous. Channel 4 has a truly unique role in British broadcasting. As a company owned by the British public, which costs the public nothing, it commissions new programming, creates jobs, and discovers new talent across the country.
The channel plays a key role in the pipeline of talent and skills in the industry. For example, 4Skills has provided opportunities to young people who might never have considered a career in broadcasting, through apprenticeships, training schemes and the Content Creatives scheme. 4Skills has reached over 10,000 people since 2015 and aims to reach a further 100,000 over the next decade. Channel 4 has also brought us Film4, which spends more on British film than any other UK broadcaster. It invests millions in feature films that nurture new talent and help to sustain writers, directors and production companies across the UK. In addition, Channel 4 takes seriously the need to enable opportunities outside London, spending over 50% of its commissioning budget outside London—something it has committed to continue even after the introduction of the clause.
The Government’s plan to sell off Channel 4 was a plan to sell out Britain, heavily disrupt the broadcasting industry, and puncture several local economies. I am very pleased that Ministers finally came to their senses, although I question why it took them so long, and I reiterate the disappointment that I expressed on Second Reading that the process has delayed the introduction of other important measures in the Bill.
The clause is best understood in the context of the U-turn on privatisation. Channel 4 never asked for the removal of the publisher broadcaster restriction. Instead, the measure was announced as part of the package that the Government put forward when announcing Channel 4 would not be for sale. The statement that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), put out at the time said that the change would give the channel more “commercial flexibilities”, and
“exploit Intellectual Property…as other public service broadcasters are able to.”
What the announcement did not include was a detailed assessment of what impact the change might have on the independent production sector more widely. Even Channel 4 warned that there could be
“unintended consequences on the UK production sector”
as a result of the new powers. Directors UK also pointed out that the changes could
“distort or negatively impact the market in which our members are employed”.
Furthermore, the Media Reform Coalition expressed concern that even the current state of play was seeing smaller independent companies suffer, with Channel 4 becoming overly reliant on super indies. It was therefore crucial that the wider market was properly considered before the change was implemented.
I am pleased that the Department and Channel 4 have made a range of commitments to mitigate any potential negative impacts of the change. 4Skills will receive increased annual investment, the number of roles outside London will be doubled and, perhaps most important, Channel 4’s independent quota will rise to 35% of qualifying programmes. If Channel 4 does commence production, which I understand would be a gradual process and is some way off at the moment, further measures would be put in place. There would be a separate C4C production business with its own board and governance, a proper dispute resolution procedure and new reporting requirements. All of that will then be underpinned by a new requirement for Ofcom to consider whether Channel 4’s in-house productions have impacted on the fulfilment of its remit.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that package of measures has eased everyone’s concerns. I know the Media Reform Coalition, for example, has called for the restriction to remain in place and for further measures, such as a small and medium-sized enterprises guarantee, to ensure that a majority of commissioning spend goes to producers with an annual turnover of less than £25 million. Although I believe that significant progress has been made since the first draft was published to assess the impact of the clause on the market, I continue to understand and recognise that the changes will be worrisome to independent producers, particularly small ones.
If Channel 4 decides to exercise the new powers in the Bill, I hope it continues the approach it has taken thus far of doing everything possible to allow the independent sector to thrive, from top to bottom, and keeping itself accountable by setting targets that ensure this. With that in mind, I am happy to proceed with the measures within and without the Bill in the hope that they will be the start of a longer process of assessment and engagement with the wider market. I am grateful that Channel 4 will remain in public ownership, and hopeful that it will continue to deliver a unique contribution to the industry, as well as our screens, for years to come.
I know there was some concern over the initial drafting of clause 29, not because anyone disagrees with the principle of the duty, but because of a fear of unintended consequences if the clause did not take into account the primary functions of Channel 4 in looking to mirror the Companies Act 2006. Indeed, the new duty outlined in this Bill should largely only reinforce what Channel 4 is already doing. As such, it is right that the wording has been adjusted so that it directly references the primary functions of the channel, and is based on the well understood directors’ duties in the Companies Act 2006 while recognising the channel’s status as a statutory corporation rather than a limited company. Having spoken with Channel 4 since the new version of the Bill was published, I understand it is much happier with this drafting.
Clause 30 places C4C under a duty to facilitate fair competition for its commissions for broadcast and on- demand services; both Ofcom and Channel 4 are then given duties to report on C4C’s performance in adhering to that policy. As mentioned when we discussed the terms of trade regime in part 1, it is incredibly important to ensure that basic principles of fair competition are applied when public service broadcasters are commissioning work, so I am pleased that this clause will further enshrine good practice in legislation.
Sir John Whittingdale
Perhaps I should start by saying the one thing we agree on is that Channel 4 has played a valuable role in the UK broadcasting ecology, and that we want that to continue. I do not always agree with everything I see on Channel 4—I suspect few in this room do—but it has a history of innovative programming that is of real benefit. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East says, it has been hugely important in supporting the independent production sector and creating jobs across the UK. I should say that “Married at First Sight” is made, in part, in my constituency of Maldon. I think that Channel 4 has just announced there is going to be a dedicated channel to “Married at First Sight”, although how much of a contribution to the public service broadcasting remit that will make is perhaps debateable. Nevertheless, Channel 4 has a wide range of diverse content.
The Government considered whether there should be a change of ownership because we want to make sure Channel 4 is in a strong position to thrive going forward. There is no doubt that the Channel 4 model is under pressure. It becomes particularly vulnerable when faced with an advertising downturn, as indeed we are seeing at the moment. To provide Channel 4 with greater support through diversification of its revenue streams, the Government have decided it is appropriate to remove the restriction to allow Channel 4 to make its own programmes.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
When Channel 4 representatives gave evidence to the CMS Committee recently, they were asked about that producer-provider split and whether they would make use of it. Their answers were quite dismissive in tone. They suggested the change would require them to take responsibility not only for production, but for the marketing of any product, which they do not have to do now; that is part of the role of independent producers that produce the content. Did Channel 4 at any time in its discussions with the Minister indicate that it wanted this new responsibility?
Sir John Whittingdale
The first thing to say is that nobody is forcing Channel 4 either to acquire a production capacity or to develop its own production capacity. That will be a matter for Channel 4; we are merely giving it the option. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about Channel 4 saying that it is not particularly interested in pursuing that option, but I think that has changed. I have had a lot of discussions with Channel 4, including one yesterday to discuss precisely how the requirements would work. The fact that Channel 4 has engaged a lot with us on the detail—particularly the competition aspect of the commissioning process—indicates that, even if not immediately, it certainly wishes to explore the option and have that ability. I do not think that debating how the requirements will operate is a waste of time. I do not know when Channel 4 will take advantage of the option; that is a matter for it to decide, but it is certainly keen to have it available.
Andy Carter
I hear what the hon. Member for Eltham said, but all the other media businesses in PSB have acquired production companies so that they can sell products around the world. If Channel 4 said, “We are not going to do that; we are just going to stay as a broadcaster publisher,” it would be left in an incredibly vulnerable state. I encourage Channel 4 to get on and move into that space, because having alternative revenue streams to advertising will give it more certainty in the future.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having an in-house production facility, as, for instance, ITV and the BBC do, allows channels to potentially make programmes not just for their own transmission but for others as well. It therefore offers a diversification of revenue streams.
The other point my hon. Friend might be getting at is that Channel 4 commissions all its programming output externally, but that is usually governed by terms of trade that mean that it does not retain the intellectual property of that programme. The restriction limits the amount of money that it can make from the commissioning of programmes. There are reasons why Channel 4 might well want to explore the option, but, as I say, it is not required to do so. It will be a matter for the channel.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East rightly raised the concern that giving Channel 4 that freedom could adversely impact the independent production sector. That is why we have included in the Bill the requirements for fair competition and for Ofcom to monitor the statement of commissioning policy and carry out a review to ensure that there is not an adverse impact of the kind that she described, as well as the increase in the independent production quota. I think that the Bill contains protections for the independent production sector, but at the same time gives Channel 4 the freedom that there is a strong chance it will wish to exploit at some future date.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
S4C’s powers and public service remit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 33 to 36 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Sir John Whittingdale
Clauses 32 to 36 relate to S4C and enact the recommendations made in the “Building an S4C for the future” independent review. The clauses update S4C’s powers, public service remit, and audit and governance arrangements. They also adjust the approval arrangements for S4C’s commercial activities, and update the BBC’s responsibilities to support S4C in delivery of its public service remit.
Clause 32 amends the Communications Act 2003 to update S4C’s powers and public service remit. It removes the current geographical restriction on S4C’s powers, ensuring that it is able to provide services outside Wales, and confirms that it is allowed to provide digital or online services, as recommended by the independent review published in 2018. That will allow S4C to broaden its reach and offer its content on a range of new platforms in the UK and beyond, ensuring that it continues to play a vital role as a public service broadcaster and has a strong future delivering high-quality content for Welsh-speaking audiences in the UK and indeed around the world.
The clause also simplifies the framework of S4C’s functions, public service duties and public service remit currently set out in the Communications Act 2003, reflecting the new public service remit introduced for all public service broadcasters in part 1 of the Bill. In recognition of S4C’s position as the UK’s only dedicated Welsh-language broadcaster, the clause retains the requirement that a substantial proportion of S4C’s public service remit content must be in Welsh. However, to ensure that S4C is not unnecessarily limited in its ability to deliver for Welsh-speaking audiences, the clause confirms that S4C may also provide content that does not fulfil the public service remit alongside the content that does. That brings S4C’s powers into line with those of other public service broadcasters.
The clause also adjusts the approval arrangements for S4C’s commercial activities. It replaces the previous requirement for approval to be provided by way of an order in secondary legislation with the requirement for approval in writing. That will give S4C greater flexibility in responding to market developments, as was recommended by the independent review.
The Secretary of State will have the power to approve a range of activities by way of a general approval, or to approve a particular activity in a specific approval. Any other activities already being carried out by S4C are to be treated as approved at the point of commencement, whether or not they were previously approved by the Government, given that it would be impractical to pause them purely for the purposes of obtaining approval after commencement.
It is important that S4C is given commercial flexibility as recommended by the review. However, at the same time, as it is a PSB in receipt of significant public funding, it is also appropriate for the Secretary of State to be given the opportunity to consider the suitability of specific activities to ensure that they remain in line with S4C’s functions. The clause therefore specifies that S4C must obtain the Secretary of State’s approval in writing before providing any television programme service, or doing anything for a charge or with a view to making a profit.
It would be difficult to create an exhaustive list on the face of the Bill of approved activity for payment, or intended to make a profit, that S4C could undertake, because we cannot predict precisely what future commercial activity might constitute. The clause therefore allows the Secretary of State to determine which activities can be covered by a general approval and which would need specific approval, for example, on the basis of a financial threshold.
Clause 33 formally replaces S4C’s governance arrangements, currently set out in legislation, with a new unitary board that is composed of both executive and non-executive members. That is also in response to a recommendation made by the 2018 review, which recommended that the governance structure at the time, which was the S4C Authority, should be replaced with a new unitary board comprising executive and non-executive directors. That replaces the previous two-tier management structure, which the review concluded created uncertainty around responsibilities.
In response to the review, and with the support of the Government, S4C has already created a shadow unitary board that undertakes governance responsibilities, with provision in its standing orders for specific situations where the differences between the previous model and the unitary-board model have required a bespoke approach. The clause therefore places that arrangement on a statutory footing by establishing S4C’s new unitary board and confirming that the board has overall responsibility for S4C’s activities in pursuit of its powers and duties.
The clause makes further changes to the Broadcasting Act 1990 to create the unitary board, adding the requirement for non-executive and executive members in accordance with the principle of the unitary board, and confirms that, as now, the chair must be appointed by the Secretary of State, along with a specific number of non-executive members.
The rest of the clause is largely limited to updating existing legislation with references to non-executive and executive members.
Clause 34 amends S4C’s financial audit arrangements in schedule 6 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, so that the Comptroller and Auditor General is formally appointed in legislation as S4C’s external auditor, rather than S4C’s being able to choose its own auditor. Again, this is in response to a recommendation made by the review. The review recommended that the Government consider whether the audit arrangements were suitable, and the Government accepted the recommendation. Although the Comptroller and Auditor General has actually taken over the auditing of S4C’s accounts, the clause puts the arrangement on a statutory footing.
The clause also places requirements on S4C subsidiaries. It requires each S4C subsidiary to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as auditor unless the Comptroller and Auditor General agrees that the subsidiary may appoint a different auditor. The Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect the accounts of any S4C subsidiary regardless of the identity of the subsidiary’s auditor, and S4C must give the Secretary of State access to the accounts and related documents of an S4C subsidiary.
Clause 35 allows the BBC and S4C to come to an alternative arrangement on ways for the BBC to support S4C in delivery of the public service remit. Current legislation results in a fixed approach of requiring the BBC to provide at least 10 hours of programmes in Welsh to S4C per week. The clause amends the 1990 Act to allow the BBC and S4C to agree in writing an alternative arrangement to the BBC’s existing responsibility if it is mutually and commercially beneficial for both parties. That reflects the fact that the BBC may be able to provide to S4C other types of support that are more relevant to its functions and remit in the modern digital broadcasting age. That could include, for instance, the use of spectrum, specific services, rights, funding or content. This will better enable S4C to broadcast a wide range of high-quality content and serve Welsh-speaking audiences. The BBC will be required to publish the terms of an alternative agreement as soon as reasonably practicable. The BBC will be able to exclude from publication any information that it considers to be commercially sensitive.
The clause also removes references to S4C’s analogue television service and the requirement for Channel 4 to provide S4C with programme schedules and programmes to deliver that service. This simply reflects the fact that S4C’s analogue television service, which showed programmes in English from the Channel 4 service alongside Welsh language programmes when Channel 4 was not available in all parts of Wales, no longer exists.
Finally, clause 36 introduces schedule 4, which contains further amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the Communications Act 2003 that are required as a consequence of the provisions in this part. The changes also reflect S4C’s new public service remit.
Taken together, these clauses reflect the Government’s recognition of the valuable contribution that S4C makes to the lives and wellbeing of Welsh speakers and learners. We remain committed to helping S4C to adapt to the changing media landscape and remain relevant as an independent and modern public service broadcaster in the UK. I urge that clauses 32 to 36 and schedule 4 stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The second chapter of part 3 of the Bill makes a number of changes to S4C, which I understand is largely very welcoming of the Bill and wants to see it passed, particularly in order to benefit from prominence measures and to become in scope of the listed events regime. These clauses are of crucial importance, but are not quite as immediately transformative as the changes made to C4C, as they largely provide a legislative basis for changes that have already started to roll out. Indeed, it was all the way back in 2018 that the “Building an S4C for the future” review made recommendations, which the Government accepted and which form the basis of the clauses.
Given the long wait for the new laws, S4C and DCMS agreed for many of the changes to be adopted early in the meantime. As such, although clause 32 introduces a new remit, S4C has already taken advantage of the changes within it, offering online and digital services and providing services outside Wales. This has allowed S4C to adapt to the changing landscape and broaden its reach and appeal beyond just those Welsh speakers situated in Wales. It is therefore welcome that the clause ensures that legislation reflects the new reality of how S4C can be accessed and delivered.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Convention on Genocide
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you as Chair of the proceedings, Ms McDonagh. It is a long time since I have engaged in this art form.
I will begin by expressing my regret that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) cannot be with us today; unfortunately, he is not well. He was the co-sponsor, along with me, of at least part of this debate, and I count him as a good ally on matters concerning human rights. The hon. Member for Henley leads the UK delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe, which gives him prominence in the human rights debate.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I join the hon. Member for Rochdale in expressing our dismay at my hon. Friend the Member for Henley not being here to speak on a subject on which, as the hon. Gentleman generously said, he is extremely expert. I am sure that the whole House would want to wish him a speedy recovery.
Tony Lloyd
I will pass the Minister’s words on to the hon. Member; I think we would all agree on that.
On a happier note, we meet today to celebrate the fact that it is now some 75 years since two important universal documents appeared. The universal declaration of human rights was brought into being on 10 December 1948, and, of course, there was the equivalent declaration on genocide. I shall not trespass on to the genocide declaration, because my identical twin, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will speak on that.
Tony Lloyd
Some identical twins differ more than others; that is all I will say. Nevertheless, he will speak on that declaration with great knowledge.
The only thing that I will say about the genocide declaration is that it is sometimes very narrowly interpreted as being concerned solely with the partial extermination—the killing—of populations when, in fact, it is much broader than that. It is very important both in the way that the public perceive it and in creating a legal base for many other activities. I will begin by saying what a tremendous thing it was that the United Nations was able to bring that together. It was very much influenced by Eleanor Roosevelt, the spouse of President Roosevelt. It was particularly important because the world had just lived through the most astonishing atrocities: the dehumanisation of the individual, with six million Jews killed in the death camps along with untold numbers of gypsies, gay people and Slavs. Even though those were Hitler’s evil crimes, it is, perhaps, worth quoting Stalin, who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. That chilling comment almost summarises what took place during the second world war and how those in the generation that brought into being the universal declaration were able instead to say, “No, we are not prepared to accept that; each human being is valid in their own right”.
The preamble to the universal declaration of human rights says:
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
That is the rights of “all members”, without consideration of gender or any other of what we would now regard as protected characteristics. In that context, this was a major change in attitude to the concentration on the individual.
As a slightly barbed comment, I will just say that we even heard in the main Chamber recently a Minister talking about the situation in Gaza and Palestine and saying that the killing of Palestinians was a “by-product”. That may have been an infelicitous use of words, but it is the kind of verbal usage that we must be very careful to guard against, because the life of every individual must be treated as being valid, which is exactly what the universal declaration of human rights reminds us of.
Of course, in this era we can ask, “Has the universal declaration been a success or a failure?” Its level of aspiration is extraordinary: prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex or religion; the right to life and liberty; the prohibition of slavery; prohibition of torture; prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile; the right to a fair trial; freedom of religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work, which interestingly includes the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to form or join a trade union; and the right to education.
Referring back to equal pay for equal work, it took another two and a half decades before our country even legislated on that issue, when Barbara Castle brought in the equal pay legislation. However, the universal declaration of human rights was developed back in the 1940s, so this profound declaration established the principle of equal pay for equal work.
If we look across the nations of the world, it is not that difficult to be dismayed in this era by the breaching of the commitments that many countries have made to the universal declaration of human rights. I will run through some of those countries; I know that other hon. Members will have other countries that they prefer to talk about.
Let us take the situation in Syria. A terrible war has taken place there, and now 2.4 million children have no access to education and 55% of Syrians are food-insecure. Both of those things are in contravention of articles of the declaration.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, we know about the unlawful killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Ankara. That still screams out as an abuse by the Saudi authorities. And of course Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger and activist who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for creating an online forum for public debate, and he now faces a 10-year travel ban after his release.
In Iran, the debate about the right of a woman to choose whether or not to wear the hijab, or the scarf was put to the test by the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. She died in police custody after being severely beaten and tortured. That led to literally millions of people protesting to challenge the Iranian regime’s actions. The result was that 19,000 people were arrested and 551 people were killed.
Oddly, of course, while the Iranians want to dictate that women should wear the veil or scarf in certain circumstances, in France the hijab is banned under certain circumstances, in contravention of these rights that I am discussing.
Russia is now a major abuser of rights. In the Bucha massacre—let us say genocide—in Ukraine, 450 people were murdered, and mass rape and torture took place. In addition, 16,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped; only 300 of them have been returned from Russia or, possibly, Belarus. There is also the case of Arshak Makichyan, a climate activist who is charged with terrorism; he has also been stripped of his Russian citizenship and left stateless.
In Serbia, we know that the attacks in northern Kosovo, including the so-called Banjska attack in October this year, were planned by armed Serbian militants, but they were almost certainly organised by Milan Radoičić, who has strong links to the Serbian president. In Serbia, of course, they continue to deny the genocide that took place in a previous era.
On a different continent, in the Philippines unlawful killings have been carried out under the war on drugs, which was launched by former President Duterte. It is believed that maybe over 6,000 people were killed during that period. I met a Filipino priest this week who cannot return to the Philippines because he would be charged by an army officer who wanted to indict him for the criticisms he made of that army officer.
I could go on, with many more cases in Colombia. We know that 182 killings of human rights and environmental defenders took place there in the previous calendar year. There is legislation to protect those defenders, but it is not implemented. Impunity is a major problem.
I will not go through every country in the world, but I want to touch on one or two others. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, war has been endemic for many years: mineral wealth is stolen by the DRC’s neighbours, but routine torture of its citizens also takes place. I met an asylum seeker this week who was granted asylum and now lives in this country as a refugee. In Zimbabwe, arbitrary arrest takes place. In Mali, the Malian and allied security forces have been implicated in hundreds of unlawful killings. There is also no doubt that in India, systematic discrimination against and stigmatisation of religious and other minorities, particularly Muslims, is endemic. In January, photographs of 100 Muslim women, including journalists and activists, were displayed on an app that said they were for sale, in order to humiliate and intimidate them; in October, police in Gujarat publicly flogged Muslim men accused of disrupting a Hindu festival; and in Indian-occupied Kashmir, the actions of the Indian authorities are outrageous. Those very often slip through the net of things to which we are able to pay attention.
I cannot fail to mention the situation at the moment in the middle east with Israel and Gaza. The attacks on Jewish women and the level of brutality meted out by Hamas scream out against everything we believe in. We need to condemn Hamas and the activists who perpetrated those attacks. Equally, however, I have to condemn the actions of the Israeli forces when we see the denial of food and water and of power to hospitals, which, again, are in breach of Israel’s convention obligations. Across the world, there is a pattern of abuse that is both tragic and, perhaps more legalistically, in gross contempt of those countries’ obligations.
The challenges come closer to those who were the driving forces for the universal declaration. The United States is not free of criticism. We have seen people arrested without charge and without process in Guantanamo Bay, for example. Again, the world ought to pay attention to that. In the United States, the right to health is rationed by the power of the dollar, so the poor do not have access to their declaration rights to health. The death penalty—both the so-called legal death penalty and the death penalty sometimes at the hands of the police and other forces—is also something that shames America.
In case people think I am ignoring our own country, we have not ratified the protection for migrant women under the Istanbul convention, for example. We really need to begin to move on that. We have made laws that allow us to strip individuals of their citizenship, leaving them stateless. That cannot be right and is contrary to convention rights. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will almost certainly come before the European Court of Human Rights—it needs to do so—because it offers de facto an amnesty from prosecution for the most serious crimes of murder and unlawful killing. Last night, we heard the Home Secretary’s view that he could declare by statute Rwanda to be a safe country. I remind Members that the United States State Department described Rwanda as a country whose human rights breaches include unlawful killing and the use of cruel and discriminatory policies, including torture. By any standards that does not make Rwanda, even by statute, a safe country.
Mr Mitchell
One must be careful when talking about Rwanda, a country I know extremely well. This is a country that, in the last 30 years, suffered a genocide where 1 million people were killed in 90 days. It is an extraordinary success story of a country that has lifted itself up from the very depths to be one of the safest and most stable countries in Africa today. Do not forget either that, dealing with the aftermath of a genocide, the Gacaca court system was incredibly successful at processing people who had committed murder in their hundreds of thousands and reintegrating them back into society. That is an extraordinary and pretty much unprecedented achievement.
Tony Lloyd
I have also visited Rwanda and met the same President the Minister will have spoken to. I recognise where Rwanda has come from, but I also recognise that in any journey we expect progress. The US Department of State’s critique is real and we ought to take it into consideration, in particular when we seek, by statute, to declare Rwanda to be a “safe” country. We can argue about the history, but we need to look at the present as well. There are still some unsavoury things—unsavoury is a kind word—that take place in Rwanda and we should recognise that.
Mr Mitchell
I do not want to prolong the debate at this point on Rwanda, but in the opinion of the British Government, and more widely, it is indeed a safe country. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know this, but if we look at the statistics Kigali is a safer city than London.
Tony Lloyd
Well, I am a Mancunian and we have different views on these things. I shall be leaving London sometime this evening, and not to go to Kigali.
What we must acknowledge is that a debate is taking place in the Minister’s party about the relevance of international law. I hope it will conclude that, as a nation, we are better protected when we are a part of collective security and collective law. To describe the European Court of Human Rights as a foreign court is unhelpful. It is not a foreign court; it is a court that we helped to establish. I hope the fact that there is a debate will ensure that we recommit to the values of the universal declaration of human rights.
On the positive side—I have gone through some of the negatives—the universal declaration has been the foundation of international human rights law. Nine binding treaties stem from it and the majority of United Nations members have signed up to four or more of them, so international human rights law exists and is now actionable, sometimes through national legislation, as we have in our own country, and sometimes through other bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. The international covenant on civil and political rights guarantees the right to life and equality before the law. The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights provides for the right to freedom of expression and the right to work, to social security and to education—all very important freedoms and rights. We also have the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and those who have been involved know how important that is.
Around the world, we have seen the expansion of concern—particularly in this country, but in others as well it has to be said—of non-governmental organisations. I will not name them all, but we had a number of them in Parliament this week, ranging from Amnesty International to country-specific NGOs. We recognise the growth of human rights and environmental defenders around the world, and—I mentioned the hon. Member for Henley—the important role of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe system itself in underpinning human rights in this country.
There is no doubt that the universal declaration has been a success. Here in our own Parliament, many structures and bodies are devoted to human rights, but there are challenges, which I put to the Minister in the hope that he will respond, including that defenders of human rights and the environment are under enormous pressure all around the world. They are killed, or they are charged with artificial crimes. We know about that pressure. We, as a country, should defend the defenders of human rights and the environment.
I was a Minister in the Foreign Office in my time, so I know how difficult it is to engage in human rights conversations. I had the delight of talking to President Milošević in his day, when he was about to murder Kosovans—I do not remember him being very responsive to my entreaties on human rights, so I recognise how difficult it can be. Nevertheless, there is a moral and practical obligation on our Government to ensure that the case for human rights is embedded in everything that our Foreign Office does, including striking trade deals. It must show concern about environmental protections and workers’ rights. We must recognise when striking security deals, including those involving the transfer of arms or technologies such as surveillance equipment, that such hardware can be used for the wrong purposes.
We know with near certainty that Yemenis have been carpet-bombed using weapons made in this country. We must take that on board.
I also ask the Minister to follow the model of the Bribery Act 2010 and seriously consider the establishment of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect the human rights of those working in supply chains, as well as protect the environment that supply chains can put under pressure.
Finally, I think the Minister will definitely be on board with my final suggestion, because it is implicit in his own White Paper. We need to get upstream on these things to ensure that we are building capacity around human rights defenders and environmental defenders, on issues such as impunity and on issues such as environmental protections more generally. In the end, we must build capacity to ensure that crisis does not automatically lead to violence. Those would be enormous gains. I pay tribute to the Minister for being on the more endearing end of the Government—I apologise to the Minister; he will never live that down. I nevertheless look forward to a positive response to our demands, which ought to strike favour as we celebrate the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be in a tag-team with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd). I had hoped that perhaps those with a bigger interest in human rights issues around the world would be here but, for whatever reasons, they are not. That is disappointing, because I think they would have added a lot to the debate. That said, I am pleased that a number of dedicated right hon. and hon. Members always attend these debates. It is a pleasure to work alongside them.
I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. I think we all look forward to his contribution—I do personally—because we are all of the opinion that his heart is in the same place as our hearts and that we are trying to achieve the same goals. Perhaps we on this side of the Chamber wish there was greater urgency.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) in his place. He and I have been on a number of visits to study, speak up for and better understand human rights issues, so it will be a real pleasure to hear from him.
I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) in her place. When she came into the Chamber earlier today, I gesticulated to her as if to say, “Are you going to Westminster Hall?” and she nodded her head. I was not sure whether she knew what the question was, but we are pleased to see her here.
I will speak about Pakistan. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) is here, and she and I had the opportunity to visit Pakistan in February. Some of the things that we experienced and learned were incapsulated in a report, and I will speak about some of them.
This Saturday marks the 75th anniversary of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. How often have we had to refer to genocide in the House over the years, whether in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber? It happens regularly. Although the word is not used often, that is not because it is not the right word but because it is the right word. When we use the word “genocide”, it sums up exactly what is happening, and some of the things the hon. Member for Rochdale referred to and some that I will speak to will confirm that. The convention is a promise from the international community that such crimes should never happen again—wow, if only they never happened again, but unfortunately they do. The convention serves as the basis of all atrocity prevention efforts in international law, and I am proud of the UK’s role in helping to draft the convention. Whenever things are good and right, we should say so; if they need changing, we also have to say so.
All Members present will know that I chair the all- party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and they will know my passion for ensuring that that fundamental right is upheld. We speak up for those of Christian faith, those of other faiths and those with no faith, and we do that because it is right to do so. I would have been in the Chamber to speak in the islamophobia debate, but obviously I cannot be in two places at the same time. I have tried in the past to do that; indeed, it has been rumoured that I may have succeeded, but I think that is a rumour. None the less, I would have tried to be there because I very much believe in freedom of religious belief for everyone.
It will be no surprise for those close to these issues that there is a strong connection—indeed, an unparalleled, joined-at-the-hip relationship—between freedom of religion or belief and mass atrocity crimes and human rights abuses, because we have witnessed that around the world. It hurts our hearts and depresses us whenever we see what is happening, because we want to reach out and help everybody and secure their right to exist. Religious minority communities are often the target of atrocity crimes. Violations of FORB are often early warning signs of a worsening human rights outlook for a country. We should be under no illusion that if people have been abused because they are from an ethnic minority or because of their religious beliefs, human rights abuses will be part of that as well. They may be unable to get a job, excluded from education or healthcare, or even not allowed to own their own house, and a lady or young girl will not have the same liberties or freedoms in some parts of the world.
For authoritarians, FORB represents an existential threat. In other words, the very fact that a person has a religious belief or is from a minority is a threat to some authoritarians. It should not be, but it is. For states that seek to impose their ideology, the public presence of diverse and vocal religious and belief communities is a direct challenge. As such, those communities are targeted and scapegoated and, when left unchecked, that can escalate quickly. Mass atrocities are thought of as extreme phenomena that rarely happen, but they happen regularly, unfortunately. The sad truth is that such crimes occur frequently and alarmingly and their frequency seems to be increasing.
Since the last election we have seen a coup in Myanmar leading to an escalation of attacks on Rohingya and the Taliban’s targeting of Afghanistan’s Hazara community, including women and girls as well, to an extent that grieves me greatly. The Uyghurs continue to be imprisoned in Xinjiang, and the Buddhists in Tibet and Christians in North Korea—indeed, Christians around the world, and specifically in the middle east—have been targeted.
The Hamas terrorist group’s abuse and killing of some 1,200 Israelis, and the mass rape—I find it difficult to talk about those things. I understand only too well that the paper reports are quite graphic, and some of the videos are even more graphic. Some of the things that the Hamas terrorists did to Israeli women were bestial. That is the only way I can describe it. I hope they will be made accountable for their actions.
The Baha’is in Iran are the most gentle people you will ever meet. We have probably all met them—I think we have. They are the gentlest people, so kind and so nice. Their very demeanour encourages me whenever I meet them. In Iran, they do not have the right to own land. They have no right to a job, education or healthcare. Their land and property is stolen and their graveyards, where their people are buried, are desecrated.
Those are just some of the things that happen. The situations of the Shi’as and Sunnis, the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan and the Muslims in India tell us that we live in a world that is very, very unsettled.
Examples of groups that are targeted include the Yazidis and groups in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Tigray, Israel, Palestine, Myanmar and Xinjiang. There are so many examples of states targeting minority religious communities, and the list I have given is far from exhaustive. The violence and hatred shown towards such groups is unacceptable in a world order that declares that human dignity is an essential and irrevocable standard—the fundamental basis of all human rights. That is what we say, but the reality seems very different.
Some of the greatest foreign policy challenges faced by the Government have been responses to atrocity crimes: the war in Ukraine, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the situation in Israel and Gaza and the collapse of the peace process in Sudan. I mention that because there is a duty on us, our Minister and our Government to do something for them. While our foreign policy treats atrocity crimes as an exceptional phenomenon, our response as a country will always be reactive and perhaps inconsistent.
The hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned Ukraine earlier. I am conscious that if we had responded in a stronger way when Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas in the eastern region, perhaps we would not be facing the calamitous obstacles that we have to overcome today.
Nigeria is one example of an African country where Christians are abused and attacked almost on a daily basis. That is happening in north-east Nigeria and is now creeping down into the middle of Nigeria. Middle Africa is the armoury of all of Africa. It is so flush with weapons that you could almost arm your own army from the reservoir of armaments that are available.
The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to the attacks in the Philippines; I asked a business question about an attack there just last week on a Roman Catholic mass, where four parishioners were murdered and many more were injured. Atrocities are growing around the world, and radicalisation seems to be growing. Some people—a great many people, perhaps—are unable to listen to someone else’s issues and do not understand that someone might have a different religion.
When I first came to this place, I was a member of the parliamentary friends of Colombia group. The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to that country, so I want to mention it quickly. Big businesses that should know better—some have their headquarters in western countries —carry out land grabs against peasants and the lower class, and are encouraged by the police and the army. We speak for those people.
The UK is a leader on the prevention of atrocity crimes, and the Government have much to be proud of. I will set out some of the things they have done, but the Minister will know already. They committed to prioritise mass atrocity prevention in the integrated review of the 2030 foreign policy framework. Last year, a new mass atrocities prevention hub was created in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. A full overview has been carried out of the FCDO’s primary tools for crisis analysis, and atrocity prevention has been integrated into several country strategies. The UK is currently championing a groundbreaking crimes against humanity treaty at the United Nations.
Despite all those successes, I believe there is still a considerable shortfall in the UK’s response to the threat of atrocity crimes under the genocide convention, which places a duty on states to prevent possible genocides. Currently, the UK has no mechanism to prevent future genocides and relies on non-domestic courts such as the International Criminal Court to make a determination after crimes have been committed. That means the UK’s response is retrospective and often misses the chance to prevent unfolding atrocities.
To better prevent future genocides, the UK needs a consistent response to mass atrocity crimes. We have several asks of the Government, and I know the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will emphasise them even more strongly. Most modern atrocity crimes share similar features, such that policies can be introduced to address the causes. They are motivated or legitimised through a politics of identity-based grievance, discrimination and/or human rights deficits. There is often an organised conspiracy by either state or non-state actors, many parts of which may act through domestic legislation or be legitimised by authorities. It is frustrating to watch that happen. The actors take advantage of unchecked power, even if it is enjoyed in a limited environment, and they can escalate the situation quickly, leading to widespread violence and systematic human rights violations reaching the threshold of international atrocity crimes such as genocide or crimes against humanity. There is a stepping stone from abuse to genocide; we can see the pointers.
Mass atrocities are predictable and often preventable. Early intervention is vital if we are to have the best chance of success in stopping situations escalating to the point of mass atrocities. In addition to the moral argument, early intervention brings with it a lower financial and diplomatic cost. One of the first tools used to prevent mass atrocities is targeted human rights sanctions. However, they are often inconsistently applied, and there is a lack of co-ordination with allies such as the US and the EU.
When dealing with states such as China and Russia, sanctions can have a significant impact on trade, but inaction also has a cost. If Russia had been more strongly challenged after it annexed Crimea in 2014, after the events in Donbas, or even during the 2008 war with Georgia, it is likely that the current war in Ukraine could have been prevented. I remember the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) speaking up strongly when those things happened. His words were prophetic, and if the west had responded harder and quicker—it has acted now—some of the things that have happened in Ukraine would not have happened. The impact of the war is the largest driver of the cost of living crisis: it has cost £60 billion in additional energy costs alone.
I pay tribute to churches and missionary groups in my constituency and, indeed, across Northern Ireland. Others will refer to their own churches. They do incredible fundraising and work with non-governmental organisations, in particular in Zimbabwe and Eswatini. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) will no doubt refer to Malawi, which he has always talked about. Those churches and groups have played a critical role. The earlier the intervention, the less harsh it needs to be; as such, intervening carries less of a diplomatic cost.
My four asks are coming up. Intervention needs to be consistent: we need to respond in the same way to the crisis in Ukraine and the situation in Sudan. I asked for an urgent question on Sudan this week; unfortunately it was not granted, although that is not a criticism. We are using this debate to highlight the issue. Without a consistent response, perpetrators will continue to feel free to act with impunity.
The way to achieve a coherent, consistent response in both domestic and international policy is for the UK—our Government, our Minister—to have a national strategy on mass atrocity crime. That is one of the main recommendations of the International Development Committee report “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world”. It states that without concerted action, mass atrocities are likely to become more common, which will constrain global development. That is the point of this debate.
Good things have happened, but not enough of them and not to the extent of making change. We are here to speak up for those who have no voice, the voiceless in the world—our brothers and sisters who have lost their lives and families and have been abused. That is important. The UK is leading the world on its human rights policies on freedom of religion or belief and preventing sexual violence in conflict. A natural extension of those priorities would be a national strategy on mass atrocity crime. That is my ask for today.
I want to use my final few minutes to ask the Minister a few specific questions. Just last week, the US State Department made a determination that war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing were happening in Sudan. Given that the UK is a penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council and given the targeting of places of worship in the current crisis, are we not now in a position to make a similar determination for Sudan? I ask the Minister that question directly.
The all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief has recently released a report following a trip to Pakistan; the hon. Member for Putney and I were at the launch just last week. It was a well-attended event at which we were made very aware of the persecution, ethnic cleansing and murder—all the things happening to Christians, Shi’as, Sikhs, Hindus and Ahmadis in Pakistan. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will speak about that shortly. We are both happy to give the Minister a copy of that report to make sure he knows what we are talking about. We have made a number of recommendations, which I believe the Minister will endorse. It is important that he does.
Lastly, does the Minister recognise the intersection between atrocity crimes and freedom of religion or belief? What role does that intersection play within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s new mass atrocity prevention hub? I conclude with those comments. I say gently to the Minister that we have those four asks; others will have theirs. As I said earlier, I am happy to see the Minister in his place as I believe he understands the issue. What we need is not words but actions. We have put forward some ideas about how the UK can play a greater role in respect of the UN genocide convention or the universal declaration of human rights.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh, and to speak in this debate on the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights and the UN genocide convention. I am pleased that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is here to respond this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I also thank Dr Kate Ferguson and the whole team at Protection Approaches as well as the teams at the Aegis Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, Remembering Srebrenica and the young people from Hampton School, who have campaign called “Genocide 80/20”, and who are campaigning tirelessly on preventing genocides and mass atrocities.
In the 1990s, long before being elected to this place, I worked in Bosnia during and after the war; more recently, I visited the site of the Srebrenica memorial to the genocide. I have also visited Yad Vashem in Israel and the Holodomor memorial in Kyiv, which I went to last year with other MPs.
Given that background and those visits, I am honoured to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. I became chair four years ago, when I was elected— I cannot believe it has been four years—because I am so passionate about not seeing an endless train of atrocities. Some of the most important decisions that we will make as parliamentarians will be about atrocities, but when we see them it is too late for many people.
I will focus on early warning and prevention, and especially the call for a national strategy on mass atrocity crimes. This is not an abstract policy area; we have seen it with our own eyes. I have seen the real and devastating impact that hate has when it is left unchecked. The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was the first human rights treaty— adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, 75 years ago this Saturday. It signified the international community’s commitment to make sure that the incomprehensible horrors of the past could never be repeated. That commitment to “never again” has resounded down through those 75 years, and it must really mean something.
The convention means that the international community has committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure that the early-warning systems are in place and that there are no excuses for inaction. It sets out a definition of genocide as the
“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
It is that special “intent” that makes it a uniquely difficult crime to determine.
While the convention was a signal of the intention of 152 states to finally end genocide once and for all, its implementation in the real world falls short of its bold ambitions, as we have seen over these 75 years. Responses are too frequently focused on acknowledging that a genocide has already occurred, and sometimes punishing those responsible. That is absolutely important—it is important that justice is seen—but it falls short of fulfilling the original intention of the genocide convention: there is not enough focus on identifying potential genocides and preventing them before they metastasise into a cancer of hate and suffering.
The APPG on the prevention of genocide, which I chair, has set out the case for the need for a consistent response to mass-atrocity crimes—a need for a national strategy. There is not enough strategic oversight from the Government to pick out those early indications or risks, or to respond to urgent warnings. Modern atrocity crimes all share very similar features and should be met with policies that address them.
I have heard people in my constituency say, “I can’t watch the news at the moment—it’s too much.” It feels so overwhelming when we hear about all the situations happening. However, saying that there is something is similar about them—that they can be addressed early on, that they can be spotted and that action can be taken—gives power back to Governments, back to us, and to our embassies and high commissions around the world, so that we can take action.
Those broad causes can be broken down into separate elements. First, modern atrocities are often motivated or legitimised through politics of identity-based grievance, discrimination and often a lack of human rights. Secondly, they can be through an organised conspiracy by state or non-state actors. Thirdly, modern atrocities frequently arise from a group taking advantage of unchecked power. If that power remains unchecked, escalation can then take place faster than the international community can respond, leading to widespread violence and systematic human rights violations.
Those may sound like extreme and rare occurrences, but that is not the case. Across the world, mass atrocities occur much more frequently than we would like to think, and many have been raised by other members in this debate. Just look at Ukraine or the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, which the hon. Member for Strangford has already referred to and which we saw when we visited Pakistan earlier this year. There is a report with many recommendations for both our Government and the Government of Pakistan, which I hope the Minister will look at and consider as well.
Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Tigray, Myanmar, Xinjiang, the Hazaras, the Yazidis, and what is happening in Israel and Palestine are all examples of ongoing atrocities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, we condemn the actions of Hamas against the Jews, who are living peacefully—the rape of women, the killing and hostage-taking. We also condemn the disproportionate use of force by Israel—the use of access to water, food, medicines and fuel as a weapon of war, and the forced displacement of 1.7 million people and rising. The incidence of mass atrocities is rising across the world because inequality, social fracture, democratic backsliding, resource scarcity, arms proliferation, climate change and the internationalisation of malign, non-state actors are all moving us in the wrong direction.
Although that news is deeply concerning, we know that mass atrocities are predictable and often preventable. Early intervention is the key. Not only is that more likely to succeed in saving lives, but it will have a lower financial, military and diplomatic cost as well; it is good value for money to save lives by early intervention when it is seen that atrocities are on their way to being committed. As I have said, to intervene early enough we need a coherent strategy backed up with strong political will that is consistently monitoring and responding to the causes that I have outlined. Early intervention is not good only in itself; it is fundamental to our security in the UK. Preventing mass atrocity crimes is not a nice-to-have or a concern simply for those of us committed to human rights; it is fundamental to our national security.
Let me first commend the progress made in recent years. Since I became chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, we have been monitoring the situation closely, and we have seen progress. There is commitment to prioritising mass atrocity prevention in the integrated review and in the new 2030 foreign policy framework.
There was the creation of the new mass atrocity prevention hub, which sits in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Although it is welcome, that hub must have teeth and the scope to work across Government Departments, with clear lines of accountable political leadership with the means to prevent, mitigate, respond and punish. At the moment, we do not have an approach for how to foresee and respond to the pathologised violence of mass atrocity crimes, which is different from violent conflict. The hub must be preventive in nature, in line with the UK’s commitment.
It is also encouraging to see the integration of atrocity prevention in several countries’ strategies—meaning that embassies and high commissions are taking this up and taking action—and to see the UK championing a crimes against humanity treaty at the United Nations. In the international development White Paper published recently, there is a section that says that new technologies should be used to expedite the forecasting of conflict and mass atrocity risks, extending the length of time from a few months to a few years in advance, in order to buy time for response. Access to data and technology should be extended so that early warning is used more systematically across the international system. It is a good start and it is good in its own right, but it just does not go far enough; a national strategy would take that much further.
Tony Lloyd
Just a brief point, if I may. I fundamentally agree that the national strategy would move the situation forward, but we also need to internationalise this process. We need to at least bring together like-minded nations who would be prepared to buy in to exactly the same framework.
Fleur Anderson
I wholeheartedly agree. The UK championing a crimes against humanity treaty would be one stage of that, but it needs to go further, with internationalising through many other treaties that we are involved in and in many other streams of work.
If we had an international strategy and embassies took it up consistently, we would be more enabled on the ground through different embassies working together, as they do in many countries. A national strategy must have four components; this has also been raised in the International Development Committee’s report, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world”, which concluded that there was an urgent need for the UK to adopt a national strategy for preventing and responding to atrocity crimes.
The four core components are, first, that prevention-first policy thinking should be at the centre of any strategy. That prevention-first approach must address the causes of atrocities by disrupting and dismantling the organised architecture of atrocities. Secondly, the strategy must invest in network analysis that monitors and evaluates the drivers that cause atrocities; maps potential motivations and the interrelations between perpetrators and the coalitions that can help prevent escalation; and identifies the points where leverage can be effectively applied, and which actors can do that. The paragraph in the international White Paper incorporates that.
The third part must be a more holistic approach to developing a resilient society—this is the part that I keep going on about in many meetings. It is about civil society strength, where cohesive, equitable communities, high in public trust and with strong, inclusive institutions, can limit and mitigate the damage from both internal and external shocks. When the potential for mass atrocities is building, women’s groups, young people, access to better employment and jobs or support for human rights defenders and environmental protectors can be the crucial things on the ground that stop and prevent movement towards atrocities. As well as the diplomatic and military, civil society is absolutely crucial. It is like the three legs needed for the stool that will enable us to prevent atrocities.
Lastly, we need an institutionalisation that finds the right balance between integration and specialisation—this is how the mechanics of Whitehall works—to ensure that atrocity prevention is neither mainstreamed nor siloed to death. It leads to more effective action by co-ordinating, convening and unlocking responses. If we brought in this national strategy, the Minister would be free to do what is absolutely right, without being hamstrung by a lack of real political infrastructure.
The absence of a policy on atrocity prevention has left the UK ill-prepared to respond to some of the greatest foreign policy crises of our time: Sudan, Ukraine, Tigray and more that have already been mentioned. When the Government refused, over years, to acknowledge the atrocity risks rising in Sudan, the Minister here went further than most this summer to call out the atrocities in Darfur. Without policy on these crimes, however, even with his contributions the UK is unable to go further and take meaningful actions necessary to help protect people in Sudan. That is just one example. The Minister knows that the violence we are talking about, whether in Darfur or Syria, is markedly different from armed conflict and should not be responded to in the same fashion.
To conclude, we need a national strategy on mass atrocities, so that we lead international efforts to stamp out signs of atrocity wherever it raises its ugly head. We need a strategy that has political weight; that is consistent and not up to the interests of different Ministers, ambassadors or high commissioners; that is built in with early warning and identification; and that is resourced both in Whitehall and in countries. We need to ensure it supports a civil society for peace, so that when we say, “Never again,” we really mean never again.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I join the warm congratulations that were paid to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) on securing the debate and the support that he had from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and, of course, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), to whom we all send good wishes. All three of them have very long-standing commitments to global justice and to the defence and protection of human rights around the world. It is fitting to be having the debate in the week when the 75th anniversary of both the universal declaration of human rights and the UN convention on genocide will be marked. This is an important time for reflection, both on how far we have come and, as others have said, how far we still have to go.
A number of events in and around Parliament have marked these anniversaries. There was an excellent showcase event on Wednesday hosted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and several all-party parliamentary groups. I know that the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief hosted a similar event. Many organisations have also produced very important briefings in advance of the debate, and I hope to draw and reflect on some of them.
This is an issue of deep concern to residents in Glasgow North. It is a constituency of really considerable social and economic diversity, but the constituents are united in their support for justice, peace and respect of human rights around the world. In fact, it boasts not one but two Amnesty International groups. I have regular correspondence and in-person meetings and lobbies with not just Amnesty members, but other constituents from similar organisations who are equally passionate about these issues. I am very proud to be able to speak on their behalf.
One of the most important aspects of the declaration is its universal nature; it applies to everyone, everywhere, equally. Fundamental human rights are just that: they are fundamental, essential and an intrinsic part of human dignity and freedom. They can be denied, or they can be only partially or not even fully realised, but a right in itself cannot be taken away. A prisoner of conscience, arbitrarily detained in a dictatorship, still has a right to freedom of speech under articles 9 and 19. A child experiencing severe malnutrition in a famine-hit country still has a right to food and clean water, just as a homeless people here in central London or in Glasgow North has a right to a roof over their head—both those scenarios come under article 25. A refugee and asylum seeker today in the United Kingdom still has a fundamental right both to seek asylum and refuge and to work, even if the UK statute book says otherwise.
The universal nature of human rights means that we are all affected. If one person is denied their rights; if one person is not able to live in true and full human dignity; then in some way all our rights and all our collective and individual dignity is diminished. It is to our shame that so many people experience denial of their rights around the world. It is our responsibility, and indeed in this place our special duty and privilege, to work for a world in which everyone’s rights are respected and realised.
I have a few examples. The United Kingdom Government are right to recognise the challenge that China presents to established economic and governance systems around the world. Many of the consumer goods and services that we take for granted here in the UK and other western countries are dependent on labour and produce from China. Far too often, there is a risk that that labour has been forced and used as a means to persecute ethnic and religious minorities. A number of my constituents have had to flee China in fear of their lives because they practise the disciplines of Falun Gong or Falun Dafa. To their immense credit, from their homes in Scotland, they take action to call out the oppression of their fellow practitioners in China today. They would very much like to hear the Minister joining those condemnations, along with condemnation of the treatment of Uyghur Muslims and certain branches of Christianity, not least the locking up of Catholic prelates and clerics, and indeed the general intimidation of anyone who dares to criticise the Chinese Communist party.
It is also my privilege to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Eritrea, a country often described as the North Korea of Africa. I hear that phrase particularly from citizens of Eritrea itself who have fled to the UK in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. Despite the incredibly high rate of asylum grants to people from Eritrea by the UK Government, the Government now want to be able to deport to Rwanda anyone from Eritrea who arrives by irregular means. But there is no safe and legal route for anyone who has spoken out against the regime in Asmara to leave that country, let alone to arrive in the UK. The UK Government effectively want to ban asylum claims from one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet.
I invite the Minister, perhaps along with the new Illegal Immigration Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), to meet some of the young Eritreans who I met here in Parliament on Tuesday and hear their testimonies about the brutality that they have escaped—arbitrary detention, the arrest of family members, forced conscription and torture—and then explain to them why the UK Government’s position is that they are not welcome here and should go back to France, a country where they do not speak the language. The Ministers might also like to listen to their concerns about the Eritrean regime continuing to gather intelligence on their activities here in the UK, and the methods that it uses to levy a 2% tax on the income of expatriates.
Among the organisations at the IPU’s marketplace on Tuesday was ABColombia, which I have worked with both before and since being elected into this House, and with which I had the privilege of visiting Colombia back in 2018—I know that the hon. Member for Rochdale takes a keen interest in the situation in that country as well. Many of the communities there that face challenges to their human rights experience these less at the hands of the Government and more often as a result of the actions of multinational companies. For example, AngloGold Ashanti wants to displace peasant farmers in the Cajamarca region by opening what its marketing sales makes sound like a small artisanal gold mine. In fact it is called La Colosa, and would involve essentially blowing the top off a mountain, with all the attendant risks to land, water quality and the way of life for people living in hundreds of surrounding square kilometres.
In the north of the country, the multinational Glencore has chosen to sue the Colombian Government for millions of dollars because the constitutional court made a decision to prevent the expansion of its Cerrejón coal mine, which would violate the fundamental rights of the Wayúu indigenous peoples. It is more important than ever that the UK Government seek to find ways to incorporate the Ruggie principles on business and human rights into appropriate legislation and regulations, so that companies based in the UK or that trade on the London stock market are held to the highest possible standards.
One of the biggest themes of the 75th anniversary of the UDHR has been the role of people who defend human rights. A human rights defender could be anyone: a journalist, activist, lawyer, health professional, teacher or other community leader who works to defend human rights and expose injustice.
I remember meeting some of the human rights defenders in Columbia. That phrase—to me, anyway—conjured up an image of grizzled campaigners who had been doing that their whole lives. But what struck me was how remarkably young some of those people were, and how prepared and willing they were to take incredible risks to their wellbeing and future livelihoods to speak out in defence of their communities.
As Amnesty International and others have said, around the world such people are being increasingly stigmatised, intimidated, attacked and subject to unjust prosecutions. One of the particularly salient cases they highlighted was that of Ahmed Mansoor, who has been imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates after speaking out about the detention, torture and unfair trials of other dissenting voices. While much of the world’s attention is currently focused on Dubai as it hosts COP28, will the Minister say whether the UK’s delegation will raise Ahmed Mansoor’s case with the UAE Government or, indeed, whether anybody else visiting that part of the world might also do so?
Several of us here have been able to meet and hear testimony from other human rights defenders who visited Parliament earlier this week, including those supported by Freedom from Torture, Survivors Speak OUT, and the Centre for Applied Human Rights at the University of York, which also has projects across the UK. Many of them echoed those calls for mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect human rights and the environment in the production of the goods that we all take for granted.
I was also asked to raise the decision by the UN Security Council to adopt a UK-drafted resolution lifting the arms embargo on Somalia. What reassurances have the Government received that a fresh flow of legitimate arms to Somalia will not be used by the regime against peaceful protestors and human rights defenders in that country?
As almost everyone has said, we cannot have a debate today about human rights and working to prevent atrocities without discussing the tragedy unfolding in Palestine—a tragedy that has led the United Nations Secretary-General, for the first time during his term of office, to invoke article 99 of the UN Charter, which empowers him to call to the attention of the Security Council a situation that may threaten
“the maintenance of international peace and security.”
The message that I have heard from thousands of constituents in the past two months—from totally unprecedented numbers, as I suspect is true for many of us here today—is that there must be an immediate and lasting ceasefire on both sides. Aid must be delivered, the process of rebuilding must begin, and there must be a just and peaceful political process that delivers a settlement agreeable to all, in line with the global consensus on, and support for, a two-state solution. There must be accountability for the atrocities perpetrated on, and since, 7 October.
The UK Government should be prepared to co-operate with the International Criminal Court’s exercise in gathering evidence of potential breaches of international humanitarian law. They must also be explicitly clear that they are not supplying weapons to the region that will end up being used to commit such breaches. More broadly, as the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said very powerfully, the Government need to step up their efforts to prevent such atrocities from happening in the first place.
Despite the pledges that were made in 1948, genocide has repeatedly been perpetrated. The lessons of the holocaust have clearly not been fully learned, whether it is the killing fields of Cambodia, the slaughter of the Tutsi in Rwanda, the massacres in Srebrenica or the atrocities committed against the Yazidi people by Islamic State/Daesh in 2014. Monitoring organisations identify as many as 20 emergencies worldwide where persecution and killings may be meeting the definitions of genocide.
The UK Government have to adopt a whole-of-Government approach to adopting an atrocity prevention strategy, and they should look again at proposals for a genocide prevention response Bill, such as that recently introduced in the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford was right to draw attention to how persecution of religious communities is a particular part of the growing trend of mass intimidation, persecution and, indeed, killing, around the world, and the extremism that appears to be driving that.
It is shameful that we should end up having this debate on the day after the United Kingdom Government announced proposals in their own legislation to override so much of the global human rights framework. By their own definition—found in two of their own Bills this year—their approach to people who come to the United Kingdom seeking refuge and asylum might not be, and in fact probably is not, compliant with their duties under the European convention on human rights. My constituents in Glasgow North do not support this Tory Government’s approach to people who arrive here from many of the countries discussed today. They flee war, oppression and persecution, and then find themselves being oppressed and their rights to claim asylum being denied in the very country where they are seeking sanctuary. We will oppose the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill next week, just as we opposed the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The day will come soon when Scotland can have its own independent migration policy, and make it clear that refugees are welcome here.
Perhaps looking to the future is a good note to begin to end on. Yesterday, many of us will have met inspiring young activists who came to Parliament from across the country to talk about the climate emergency and the need for climate justice. The rights of the planet itself and the rights of future generations should not be forgotten as we mark the anniversaries of the human rights declaration and the genocide convention. I thank Darcey and Isobel from The Holy Cross School in New Malden, who took time yesterday to explain many of the works of art and design on display in the Attlee Suite. They captured their generation’s response to the climate challenge and the need for action now, by this generation of politicians and global leaders, to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the planet’s resources for everyone who lives here, now and in the future.
This has been a valuable opportunity to reflect on 75 years of the global human rights framework, and the many challenges and barriers to fully realising the vision first set out in 1948. That vision is shared by many of our constituents and championed by many of the Members present, especially those who secured the debate. The Government, and indeed the official Opposition, must understand that this is where true consensus in modern politics can and must be found. Pandering to ever more extreme views that seek to minimise the importance of fundamental human rights, or that seek to other or even dehumanise sections or groups within society, is not a route to effective and stable governance, but to ever-more discord and trouble. We have a responsibility both to everyone on the planet today and to future generations to live up to the declaration of our post-war predecessors, and to keep on striving for a day when human rights truly are universal.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh, for this debate to mark the 75th anniversary of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and the UN convention on genocide. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this important debate and for the way in which he opened it. I put on record my best wishes to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) and wish him a speedy recovery.
To pick up on what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, I too am disappointed that a debate of this significance, marking such an important milestone, has not attracted more Members. Irrespective of that, it has been a thoughtful and considered debate. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for the way in which they have participated.
What has come out of this debate is the harsh and disturbing truth that the UDHR and the genocide convention have rarely been more needed than they are right now. While we can take for granted the fundamental rights of freedom of belief, freedom of speech, human dignity and justice for all, for far too many people that is simply not the case. Attacks based on race, skin colour, religion, belief, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and so much else continue to rise in just about every part of the world. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his fabulous work as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. He is right when he says that not all human rights breaches are violations of FORB, but all violations of FORB are a breach of fundamental, individual human rights, and FORB cannot be hived off or treated any differently.
Members will be aware that throughout this week, in just about every corner of the estate, events have been taking place to mark the UDHR and the genocide convention, with politicians, academics and religious leaders sharing their thoughts on how far we have come and how far we still have to go. Like many Members present, my diary was full of invitations to speak and to attend events, and I managed to get round as many as I could.
However, I will single out one event, which is the event on Tuesday that has been referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. It was the event organised by the all-party parliamentary group on human rights and the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union. Various human rights groups came along, including ABColombia, Amnesty International, the Prisoners of Conscience trust, the Campaign for Human Rights in the Philippines, Freedom from Torture, Peace Brigades International UK, Survivors Speak Out, the University of York’s Centre for Applied Human Rights and Survival International.
Alongside each of those groups was one or more incredibly brave human rights defender—people working at the grassroots in their communities and facing extreme personal danger, but nevertheless doing the work. Listening to their stories confirmed the vital importance of the UDHR, how fragile it is and how we must all work to defend it. In the spirit of what my hon. Friend said, those young people were not just there defending their own human rights or those of their community; they are on the frontline of defending the human rights of every single one of us.
As we have heard, it was on 9 December 1948, in the wake of one of the most heinous episodes in recorded history, that the countries that were then members of the United Nations formally adopted the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The following day, 10 December 1948, they signed the universal declaration of human rights.
As Professor Brett Scharffs, Director of the International Centre for Law and Religious Studies at Brigham Young University, said at a meeting here in Parliament yesterday, the people behind those conventions,
“were not starry-eyed idealists, nor were they naive. They were battle-weary statesmen and women who had come through two devastating World Wars and were sincerely searching for a better way. Their hope, their optimism and their idealism was hard-earned.”
In a world still reeling from the unspeakable horror of the holocaust, world leaders came together with one voice, saying, “Never again.” Never again, they declared, would the world be plunged into a global conflict of the kind that had dominated most of the first half of the 20th century, and never again would the world be reduced to being a passive bystander when a people or group were facing systematic persecution, ethnic cleansing or genocide based on their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity.
Those world leaders, who had seen for themselves the horrors of the Nazis and who had lived through them, fervently hoped that this new treaty was going to be one of the most transformative and important pieces of legislation in our history. When they said, “Never again”, they meant it. Those dates, 9 and 10 December 1948, changed everything because, as the hon. Member for Putney said, from then on states were not only committed to having a legal obligation to criminalise genocide and punish the perpetrators; they were legally obliged to act if they became aware of a serious risk of genocide.
In reality, unfortunately, it would be more accurate to say that 9 and 10 December 1948 should have changed everything, because bitter experience tells us that gross violations of human rights and genocides have not stopped in the intervening 75 years. Indeed, the crime of genocide has continued almost unchecked, in the killing fields of Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, in the mountains of Sinjar, in Syria, in Myanmar, and in many other places.
Despite 150 countries being signatories to the genocide convention, making them legally obliged to act against genocide, we still witness atrocities in Ukraine, Tigray, Darfur, Xinjiang, Afghanistan and Gaza, while other areas display the early warning signs of being at risk. As we mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, the sad reality is that the noble ambition of its founders has been lost in a fog of political expediency and the quite uncanny ability of world leaders to ignore the blatant reality of what is staring them in the face.
In 2023, world leaders still roundly condemn atrocity crime, but because of the legal obligation that the genocide convention puts on them, they are still reluctant to call it what it is: a genocide. To avoid having to adhere to their legal responsibilities, they find it easier to ignore the reality of what is happening, thereby fostering a widespread expectation of impunity among the perpetrators.
Sadly, in my experience, when a President, Prime Minister or Secretary of State solemnly declares, “Never again”, what they are in fact saying is, “I genuinely hope this never happens again, but should it happen again on my watch, don’t expect me to do very much about it.”
As was highlighted by the hon. Members for Strangford and for Putney and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, a huge part of the problem is that this Government still have no atrocity prevention strategy. As late as November 2021, when asked why they do not have one, they replied that they did not believe it was necessary. Minister, is that still the Government’s position? After all that we have seen in Ukraine, Gaza, Tigray, Darfur and Xinjiang, is that really still the UK Government’s position? If it is, will the Minister explain how he thinks that is working?
I expect there to be much backslapping and lots of self-congratulatory speeches in the coming days as the world marks those truly momentous days in December 1948, but it is worth taking a few moments to reflect on the reality of just how far we have actually come in the last 75 years and perhaps consider how those hard-bitten, battle-weary architects of the UDHR and the genocide convention would view what we have done to achieve their ideal of ridding the world of genocide and atrocity crime.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to be called, Ms McDonagh. I believe this is the first time that I have served under your chairship; I hope it will not be the last. I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Strangford spoke with great knowledge and passion, and I am grateful to them. I also want to put on record my best wishes to the hon. Member for Henley for a speedy and full recovery. Before I start, I would also like to thank in particular Kate Ferguson of Protection Approaches, who works with Members across the House. She is a real source of huge support on how we can use our tools more strategically to prevent atrocities.
The 75th anniversaries of the universal declaration on human rights and the genocide convention are this weekend, and I want to start by noting what an achievement they were. The world came together after the devastation of the second world war and the utter unprecedented horror of the holocaust, and committed to action. I know we all believe that working together internationally against genocide and human rights abuses is no less essential today.
As we have heard, right now in Sudan there are massive numbers of people under threat. The past weeks and months have brought more and more evidence of mass killings, rapes and the systematic forced displacement of civilians. The evidence is particularly strong that the Masalit communities are repeatedly—repeatedly—targeted for atrocities. Right now, El Fasher in North Darfur is in desperate peril. Civilians in Khartoum continue to be killed and denied humanitarian access, and the violence is spreading.
I truly welcome the United States’ determination of war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and in particular the recognition that arms and funding to the military faction fuels the horror, not matter what the source. I believe the US determination builds on work in this House and in Government, where we have worked together to shine just a fraction of the light that Sudan’s crisis requires. As we warned before the summer, permanent partition or even state collapse in Sudan is an increasingly serious risk. The scale of atrocities that could result, in addition to the many already committed, is simply enormous.
Despite the severity of the humanitarian crisis, the UK, as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan, is now presiding over the closure of the UN’s Sudan mission. So far, the international community has not had enough co-ordination and commitment for the mediation in Saudi Arabia or the African Union’s leadership to have an impact. The situation is utterly bleak. It is joined, as we know, by the sheer horror in Gaza that we see day after day on our screens, where children are being killed in their thousands as their homes are bombed; where civilians are being kettled into so-called safe zones that are anything but; and where the siege continues and humanitarian access is denied despite the tireless efforts of colleagues.
[Ian Paisley in the Chair]
However, we cannot just sit here and wring our hands. I believe that we cannot be content with symbolic acts of condemnation, and we cannot let petty political divisions take hold—not when it comes to Sudan, Myanmar or Gaza. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted from what we can actually do, because, as the raw ongoing experiences of Sudan teach us, the way in which we work against atrocities and support universal human rights needs to adapt. Let us face it: we live in a more polarised world than in recent decades, and it is far more complex and fragmented than in the 1950s. The relationships that we need to navigate are much larger in number and massively diverse in nature. Misinformation and hate speech spread at a speed and scale that we have never seen before. That means that we must approach these questions from a place of humility and respect, recognising that we are not always the best people to lead; that we do not always have the answer; and that trust is hard-won and easily lost. We must recognise that our international reputation has been damaged over recent years and look to renew it.
Sadly, many of the tools of the multilateral system, such as Security Council resolutions and UN sanctions, simply are not as accessible as they once were. To be frank, as we know, that is sometimes because Russia sees chaos, destruction and division as being in its interest. However, in other cases it is much more complicated than that.
Jim Shannon
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I recall that this morning I got a message—actually, a video —on my phone. The message was clear: 120,000 Christians in Artsakh—I hope that is pronounced correctly—in Armenia are under threat. They have no gas, water or electricity; they have no hope, and they are being butchered by an Islamic regime sponsored by Russia. I will make a plea for them, if the Minister is listening. That is another example of genocide against my brothers and sisters.
Ms Brown
Certainly. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s plea, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to respond to that with knowledge and compassion. I argue that the causes I spoke about earlier, and which we have all spoken about today, make the challenges of this agenda so much more challenging, not less—and more necessary.
It is now more important to support accountability through the International Criminal Court, including in conflicts we see on our screens day in, day out in Ukraine, Palestine and Israel. It is more important to work with civil society and protect human rights defenders and journalists. Most importantly, in a world that seems ever more dangerous, the prevention duty in the genocide convention is more relevant, not less. If we are smart and strategic, we can do a lot to work against the perpetrators, enablers and drivers of atrocities. The UK has powerful strengths that we can deploy, including our still-expansive diplomatic network and national expertise in legal and financial services.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) have said, we need to raise the alarm early, based on more extensive mapping and monitoring of atrocity risks and stronger links to civil society organisations. We need to work with our partners to bring together information about the networks that fuel atrocities, rapidly build awareness of patterns of rising violence and share evidence of responsibility. We then need to be proactive by using that greater understanding of those driving the violence to press armed groups towards de-escalation and mediation and to cut off external backers’ money to perpetrators.
We need to empower our excellent in-country diplomats to support the community-level leaders and human rights defenders who can make the difference when it matters most to prevent an escalating crisis. That is so rarely about big, flashy money; it is about rapid, quiet support for those who can calm tensions, provide credible alternative narratives in place of incitement and, if the worst comes to the worst, document the violence so that perpetrators can be held to account. It surely goes without saying that preventing a crisis avoids the vastly bigger costs of humanitarian aid, forced migration, emergency evacuations of UK nationals and the loss of development opportunities, which are shattered for years to come. And it saves lives.
What I am saying is that we need a prevention-first approach. The White Paper makes genuine, welcome progress on that, but we now need consistent leadership to turn words into reality over the coming years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, there are serious concerns about Rwanda—internally in terms of human rights and externally via the evidence of atrocities by the March 23 Movement in the DRC. That has been raised in FCDO, in addition to being raised multiple times by colleagues on both sides of the House. I gently say that it may damage our relationships with many partners if there is a suspicion that a narrow migration partnership, which the Opposition do not support, might be getting in the way of consistent UK support for human rights and atrocity prevention.
But it is not all bleakness and horror. If we work together and are strategic, we can help to slow the increasing violence across the world. To give just one example, there is hope that the draft convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity will continue to make progress with UK support. Perhaps—just perhaps—the convention might add strength where some argue that existing international laws fall short. Perhaps there will be more legal and diplomatic clarity in future about the intentional denial of access to food, water or medicine in internal conflict. Sadly, that has been evidenced in recent years in Ethiopia and now in Sudan.
We need to consistently support progress where we can. A safer world, where rights are protected for all, is a world with far fewer people in desperate need of humanitarian aid. It is a world where the politics of division and hatred is harder for malign actors to exploit, and it is a world with more opportunities and security for the UK—a world where we do not scrabble from crisis to crisis, but where our long-term international partnerships can flourish for mutual benefit. Surely we want to live in a world where the high ideals of 75 years ago are truly honoured and implemented, and surely that is worth fighting for, with strategic thinking and with passion.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I think this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley; it is a great pleasure, and I very much hope it will not be the last. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Members for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate, and very grateful indeed to the hon. Member for Rochdale for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). It has been an extraordinarily good debate, and one that reflects extremely well on the House. I say that because I think the issues that have been raised have been governed by a steady theme, and that there has been a degree of unity on both sides of Westminster Hall. I hope that my speech will reflect that. May I say at the outset that I hope I will pick up virtually all the points made, but if I miss out any point, my diligent officials will make sure that we write to hon. Members to address it.
It is my great pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful for the contributions of all hon. Members and I will, as I said, try to respond to all the points raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale both for his words and for his tone. I can confirm that he is remembered with great affection in the Foreign Office from his time serving there. I also thank him for his comments on the White Paper and his emphasis on the importance of working upstream, which the White Paper sets out very clearly. I thank the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for her words about the White Paper. Having been at the COP last weekend, I confirm that the document is resonating with our friends and colleagues around the world, not least because 50 countries had input into it. It has been welcomed by all parties in the House of Commons, and I think it charts the way ahead in a number of very important ways.
To pick up a point that the hon. Member for Rochdale made, I confirm that we ratified the Istanbul convention back in 2022. Although some reservations remain, we are committed to implementing our obligations under the convention. May I thank him for his personal remarks when he said that he found me to be among the more endearing members of the end of the Conservative party? I am extremely relieved that he thinks we have got an endearing end, and thank him very much for his remarks.
I thank the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for West Ham for their words about Kate Ferguson and protection approaches, and for explaining eloquently why they matter so much. I have worked with Kate Ferguson both in opposition and in government, which shows you how long this relationship is, Mr Paisley. I too pay tribute to her for the drive and ambition with which she prosecutes these issues.
Seventy-five years ago, a visionary group of leaders came together to make two bold statements of intent. In a world ravaged by war and divided by ideology, they recognised that every human on earth has certain inalienable rights—rights that must never again be threatened or trampled on—and so the universal declaration of human rights came into being. The day before endorsing the declaration, the United Nations General Assembly added the convention on genocide. It was a powerful recognition that in the aftermath of the holocaust, international co-operation is required to liberate humankind from the “odious scourge” of genocide that has—in all periods—inflicted great losses on humanity.
When one considers the world in which they were forged, the declaration and convention are remarkable achievements. They committed future generations to an immense responsibility. I think one of the best books I have ever read was that written by Philippe Sands, “East West Street”, which sets out very clearly the birth pangs of that strategy. When one considers the terrible challenges that the world faces today—humanitarian crises, conflicts and more—we feel the weight of that responsibility resting on all of our shoulders.
Britain is determined to carry onward the torch handed to us by those pioneers and do everything we can to protect life and dignity, and shape a world where human rights are safeguarded, democracy is at the fore and the rule of law is respected.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to be here for the whole of this important debate. I am really interested in the points the Minister is making about ensuring human rights are embedded across the world. Does he recognise the role that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other organisations play in promoting human rights to parliamentarians around the world? Will he join me in praising them for the way they help parliamentarians who believe in human rights to bring them to their Parliaments?
Mr Mitchell
I agree fulsomely with my right hon. Friend. She has undoubtedly read the international development White Paper, in which all these strands of thinking are drawn out. The Government made a very strong commitment in it to enable those brilliant organisations to continue their excellent work.
All hon. Members who spoke underlined the importance of shaping a world where human rights are safeguarded, democracy is at the fore and the rule of law is respected. I hope our forefathers would be pleased if they heard what the House has been saying today. We must use our voice on the international stage to highlight human rights violations, galvanise action and hold those responsible for abuses to account. All the while, we must work with partners across the globe to be a force for good, stand up for the vulnerable and champion equal rights for all. At a time when internationalism is so badly needed, we see an international system that is weak and divided, but let us never forget that in parts of the world where events and actions are very dark indeed, the UK has often been a beacon of light.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reflect on some of the key aspects of that work, which have been identified in the debate. First, on accountability, the recent events in Israel/Gaza are a tragedy, as many have set out. Together with the United States, last month we targeted the Hamas leadership with a new tranche of sanctions, restricting the group’s ability to operate. We have been clear that we support Israel’s right to defend itself proportionately in response to the terrorist acts by Hamas. We are appalled by the reports of rape and sexual violence committed during those brutal attacks on 7 October. The use of sexual violence as a weapon of war at any time, in any place, is abhorrent and a grotesque violation of international humanitarian law, and must be condemned without reservation. It is important that all action is in accordance with international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians. Britain recently announced an additional £30 million of British aid for vital supplies into Gaza.
In Ukraine, nearly two years on from its illegal invasion, Russia continues to demonstrate a total disregard for human rights and human life. We led efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, and created the Atrocity Crimes
Advisory Group alongside our allies from the European Union and the United States. Inside Russia, repression has increased, with a systematic crackdown on civil society. Alongside partners, we have reiterated calls for the immediate release of those detained in Russia on political grounds.
Meanwhile, in October we delivered a statement on behalf of 50 countries at the UN, drawing attention to the serious violations being suffered by members of the Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang, China. In the Human Rights Council and UN Security Council, we led on resolutions establishing or renewing UN accountability mechanisms for Syria, South Sudan, Sudan and Iraq.
Reports of an increase in ethnicity-based violence in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan are profoundly troubling. The international community must act to prevent history repeating itself.
On the subject of Sudan, which was raised by the hon. Members for West Ham and for Strangford, I wish to say a little more about what we are doing. Since the outbreak of conflict in April, over 6.3 million people have been displaced. In a BBC interview on 1 October I condemned the violence in western Sudan and made it clear that it
“bears all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.”
On 17 November Britain, alongside Troika partners—the United States and Norway—published a joint statement condemning the reported mass killings in west, central and south Darfur. The British Government are funding the Centre for Information Resilience, a research body that is gathering open-source evidence about the ongoing fighting in Sudan. This financial year we have provided £600,000 to CIR’s Sudan witness project.
Mr Mitchell
I will, if the hon. Gentleman just gives me a moment. Britain also continues to fund and provide support to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sudan, a UN body that provides a crucial role in monitoring and reporting on human rights violations.
In October Britain led efforts at the Human Rights Council to establish an international and independent fact-finding mission to gather and preserve evidence of credible human rights violations and abuses, including atrocities committed in Darfur.
Since the outbreak of conflict on 15 April we have also taken steps specifically on atrocity prevention. We have enhanced our atrocity risk monitoring, including monitoring of conflict-related sexual violence, and put dedicated capacity on human rights and atrocity prevention into the Foreign Office’s new Sudan unit. I am happy to receive the information that the hon. Member for Strangford kindly said he would send me. I have gone into Sudan in some detail because there is great interest in what is happening in Sudan, particularly in Darfur, and I wanted to share it with the House.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to our concerns over Sudan. I mentioned in my contribution that I understand the United Kingdom holds the key for Sudan when it comes to any vote at the United Nations. If that is correct, is it the intention of our Government and our Minister, or whoever will be responsible, to use that key that they hold to make sure that the very clear issue of genocide that is taking place in Sudan can be brought to the attention of the United Nations at the highest place, and then we can act on it as well?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member for Strangford is quite right to identify the importance of Britain’s role as the penholder on Sudan. He will have seen the extensive work that we are carrying out in that role not only in the United Nations, but as one of the Troika and one of the countries that works closely with the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and many other bodies to try to bring peace and stability back to that country that is suffering so much. On the words that I used about what is going on in Sudan, if the hon. Member looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I have been very clear in what I have said and what I have condemned.
On atrocity prevention, we joined Gambia in its petition to the International Court of Justice for measures against the Myanmar junta in its actions against the Rohingya people, which many have spoken of eloquently in the House.
On the issue of realising rights, human rights are essential to achieving sustainable development—a point that was made by the hon. Lady who leads for the Opposition, the hon. Member for West Ham. Our new international development White Paper, which has already been mentioned, sets out commitments towards promoting peace, justice and strong institutions. UK funding is supporting action to protect human rights across the globe, leveraging diplomatic engagement—I thank her for her words about the diplomatic service—and targeted programming alongside our international partners. The high commission in Kuala Lumpur is funding a project to support gender equality, networking opportunities and resources for women.
In Mongolia, Britain’s contribution to the UN trust fund to end violence against women has helped support women’s rights organisations to provide disability-inclusive services to survivors of intimate partner violence. In Ukraine, Britain’s funding so far has enabled 153 judges and 36 prosecutors to receive training in forming war crimes judgments to ensure that robust, evidenced war crimes cases can be brought to trial. In a connected world, the internet and independent media have a powerful role in supporting democracy and human rights. As such, Britain will continue to be at the forefront of efforts to support media freedom, to counter politically motivated internet shutdowns and to tackle disinformation.
Turning to promoting equality, our international women and girls strategy underscores the three E’s: educating girls, empowering women and girls by championing their health and rights—in particular, their ability to decide for themselves whether and when they have children—and ending gender-based violence. Work to make that a reality is needed at all levels. At the UN Human Rights Council, we partnered with the United Arab Emirates to secure a resolution on girls’ education and climate change. In the past year, Britain has sanctioned 15 individuals and entities that have committed human rights violations against women and girls, including crimes of sexual violence in conflict. On the ground, Britain’s programming supports women’s rights organisations to provide services to survivors of intimate partner violence. We also support up to 1.6 million marginalised girls across 17 countries to gain an education.
We must remain ever vigilant against attempts to roll back fundamental rights and equality for all. Too often we see attempts to reverse or undermine the rights of women, girls and LGBT+ people at the local and national level, as well as online. That has a huge impact on the lives and safety of individuals and on national prosperity, democracy and security. We will continue to use every tool at our disposal, with the full weight of UK expertise and clout, to shift the dial and stay true to the universal declaration’s promise of equal rights for all.
I raise the issue of the relevance of new technology. Of course, the world does not stand still, which is why I want to think about the future. Developments such as artificial intelligence present not only huge opportunities but risks for human rights. The Bletchley declaration of the AI safety summit recognised that the protection of those rights needs to be addressed for AI, alongside principles such as transparency, fairness, safety and privacy. The UK is committed to the design, development, deployment and use of such technologies in a way that is consistent with the rule of law.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) raised Somalia and the new resolution before the United Nations. He will be aware that the President of Somalia was a guest of the Government here in London just a week or so ago, and was the principal speaker, along with our Prime Minister, at the global food security summit. Britain is a very close partner of Somalia, involved in all aspects of that country’s work and life. I first visited Mogadishu 11 years ago. I went back there just under a year ago and saw the extraordinary changes being wrought in a country that has suffered so deeply from violence and underdevelopment. The auspices for beating back the terrorists are good—they are better than they have been—and we will continue to firmly support Somalia in every way we can. As the penholder on Somalia, we work closely with all parties to drive forward that ambition, and the declaration to which the hon. Gentleman referred makes that clear.
To conclude, 75 years after the declaration and convention, when the world stood firm to avow “never again”, freedoms continue alas to be under serious threat. Millions of people around the world continue to suffer persecution. There is a blessing recited on Holocaust Memorial Day that includes the words,
“our hearts grow cold as we think of the splendour that might have been.”
Every life lost is a loss for the world. Our past commitments must be used to build the future that every human being deserves, and I hope the words used across this debate will give encouragement to people in many places who are caught up in desperate jeopardy.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Thank you Minister. I know that Members will appreciate that very comprehensive overview.
Tony Lloyd
I begin by thanking the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for their comments about the reception two days ago, which was actually hosted by IPU, the chair of which is with us today—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—and myself as chair of the APPG on human rights.
I want to make a quick reflection. I am perhaps a little older than some people in this debate, and I grew up in a world where Africa and other parts of the world were subject to colonialism; when we saw South Africa descend into apartheid; when we saw brutal proxy wars in Mozambique and Angola; and when we saw the violent decolonisation process in Kenya, at least in part because of the acts of our own society, and even more so in French Algeria. I have lived through the Vietnam war, the bombing of Cambodia and the atrocities that later took place there.
I could go on and on: military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile and many other parts of the world; here in Europe, Greece was under the heel of the colonels; Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships; and central Europe—or the east of Europe, as we used to call it—was under the yoke of domination by the then Soviet Union, or even military rule in the case of Poland.
I do not say that to say that it has always been bad. I say it because change can happen, and change happened in all those places because of political will. It is the political will inspired by the universal declaration of human rights and by the genocide convention that can make a material difference in this world. We have heard some very good speeches today, and I congratulate everyone who has taken part. It is important that in this House of Commons, this Parliament of ours, we uphold the values of human rights. I have to say that we heard some very good things from the Minister that we, as a nation, can be proud of in terms of our own contribution. In the end, it is that exchange of not simply resources, although that does matter, but values that can make a huge difference in this world. That can enshrine the values of these two things that we celebrate today and make the change around the world that is there.
Obviously, in the end, there are very great specifics in this, but there does need to be political will. That political will needs to be internationalised; it is not enough for us to be a model country. We have to be part of an international consensus for change. We need to build the institutions: the human rights defenders, the environmental protectors, and the NGOs around the world. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) who mentioned the role of the International Criminal Court. It is also, of course, about looking to strengthen those institutions that can make a material difference—not simply the ICC, but others too. That is a role we have to play our part in, but internationalise as well.
I think the message that has come across today is that we must fight for the change that we want to see take place. We have heard some good things, and we have actually heard a commitment to real action. We need to see more action from our Government—in fact, all our Governments—on a global basis. This debate has been significant because it does say, once again, that those who had the political will 75 years ago lit a light, and we must bear that light into the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.
Written Statements
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BBC Funding
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
The Government are today announcing the level of the licence fee for 2024-25 and the launch of a review of the BBC’s funding model.
As agreed with the BBC in the 2022 licence fee settlement, following a two-year freeze the licence fee is due to rise in line with inflation from April 2024. The Government will use the annual rate of the consumer prices index in September 2023 to calculate this uplift. This is the same way the Government calculate inflation-linked increases to state pensions and benefits.
This decision means that next year’s licence fee increase will be kept as low as possible. In April, the licence fee will rise by 6.7%, to £169.50 annually. This will limit the increase to £10.50 over the year, or 88p per month, rather than a rise of £14.50, which would have happened under the previous CPI measure of an average of the 12 months to September.
The Government engaged with both the BBC and S4C to understand the impacts on the finances of both broadcasters.
The Government recognise that the licence fee model faces challenges in an increasingly competitive media landscape. The Government are therefore launching a review of the BBC’s funding model. The review will look at how we can ensure that the funding model is fair to licence fee payers, sustainable for the long term, and supports the BBC’s vital role in growing our creative industries.
The review will be led by DCMS and supported by an expert panel.
The findings of the review will support the Government to make an informed choice on whether to consult the public on moving to alternative funding models. This would take place as part of the charter review process, where any final decision on reforming the BBC’s funding model would be taken.
The terms of reference for the review will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS107]
SLAPPs Taskforce Work Plan
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)
We are pleased to inform the House that the taskforce dedicated to tackling strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which target journalists, is today publishing a plan of its future activity.
SLAPPs are considered an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper and costly legal intervention. Launched by HM Government, the taskforce is developing a non-legislative response to SLAPPs targeting journalists, which deter important public-interest reporting.
The taskforce has agreed to undertake an ambitious plan of activity that will address SLAPPs across four separate workstreams: understanding and monitoring the prevalence and nature of SLAPPs; guidance for journalists; legal services ethics; and awareness-raising. Outputs will be delivered by the Government, civil society groups, representative bodies for journalists and legal services stakeholders. These include factual guidance to provide clarity over journalists’ legal rights when faced with SLAPPs tactics, a forum for cross-regulator agreement on conduct for legal professionals dealing with SLAPPs, and an industry-facing conference to promote the taskforce’s work. An online data-gathering tool that will be launched by the National Union of Journalists to boost the evidence base about safety issues affecting journalists will also be designed to enable journalists to self-report SLAPPs confidentially.
The taskforce sits within the framework of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which was set up to ensure that journalists operating in the UK can do so free from violence or threats, and forms part of the refreshed national action plan for the safety of journalists published in October this year. It will report to the committee regularly on its progress to ensure activity is aligned to the wider safety of journalists.
The work of the SLAPPs taskforce will be key in driving forward the Government commitment to ensuring an environment in which media freedom can flourish and journalists are safe to investigate and publish stories in the public interest, holding power to account and carrying out their vital role in upholding democracy.
[HCWS103]
FCDO Funded Scholarship Schemes: Response to Independent Review
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office response to the independent public body review of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) and the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (MACC), and the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office’s internal Chevening scholarship programme.
The Government launched a review of FCDO’s arm’s length bodies’ scholarships schemes and Chevening scholarships in 2022. The review was independent and formed part of the public bodies review programme which delivers against the commitments made in the declaration on Government reform to increase the effectiveness of organisations to ensure they are set up in the best possible way to deliver.
The review sets out clear and comprehensive recommendations which will enable us to undertake a programme of reform to better support the scholarships schemes. This will ensure the three schemes continue to perform at a high level, with closer alignment to each other to ensure a mutually supportive portfolio of scholarship schemes that are greater than the sum of their parts, and which support the FCDO’s international diplomacy and development objectives.
We have published a response to the review, which sets out our response to each of the recommendations. The Government accept all the review’s recommendations, noting that some require additional budget, and the feasibility of new funding will be explored in the next spending review. The Government also accept that further detailed collaborative work with the ALBs and Chevening will be required before the implementation of all recommendations is completed.
The FCDO-funded scholarship schemes are integral to supporting the Department’s international diplomacy and development objectives, and we are grateful to the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission for engaging positively with this review. We would also like to extend our thanks to the lead reviewer and the review team for dedicating much time and consideration to this review, and for producing clear and useful recommendations which will enable us to build on the important work of the FCDO-funded scholarship schemes.
The publication will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS104]
Coronial Investigations of Term Stillbirths: Summary of Responses to the Consultation
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I wish to update the House on the responses received to a joint consultation by the Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Justice on coronial investigations of stillbirths in England and Wales.
Over the years, there have been calls from bereaved families, charities and others for a more transparent and independent process for determining the causes of, and learning from, stillbirths. Some of those calling for change identified coronial investigations as the way to deliver an improved process.
Under current legislation, coroners cannot investigate a death when it is known that the baby was not born alive. If there is doubt whether a baby was born alive, a coroner can investigate (which could include holding an inquest) but must halt that investigation if they determine that the baby was stillborn.
The consultation sought views on proposals on whether, and if so how, coronial investigations of stillbirth cases could take place in England and Wales.
The objectives of the proposals, which were co-developed with stakeholders, were to:
bring greater independence to the way stillbirths are investigated;
ensure transparency and enhance the involvement of bereaved parents in stillbirth investigation processes, including in the development of recommendations aimed at improving maternity care; and
effectively disseminate learning from investigations across the health system to help prevent future avoidable stillbirths.
Some 334 people responded to the consultation and 63 people attended our stakeholder workshops. I and my ministerial colleague at the Ministry of Justice are extremely grateful to those who responded and shared their views, particularly families who have experienced stillbirth and shared their personal and often tragic experiences. This was so important to us in considering our response.
Work to respond to the consultation was paused during the pandemic. Today I am sharing a factual summary of the consultation findings. The findings of the consultation were complex: there were mixed views about proposals that coroners should have a role in stillbirth investigations and where they were supportive, about the way in which coronial investigations would be carried out.
In addition, the landscape of maternity investigations has changed significantly since the consultation. The maternity and new-born safety investigations programme is now in place, which aims to provide independent, standardised and family focused investigations for families; to provide learning to the health system via reports at local, regional and national level; analyse data to identify key trends and provide system wide learning; be a system expert in standards for maternity investigations; and collaborate with system partners to escalate safety concerns. Additionally, the perinatal mortality review tool supports standardised perinatal mortality reviews across NHS maternity and neonatal units in the UK. Going forward, my officials are working to improve the information available to families regarding these investigative processes that may be taken forward following a stillbirth. I wish to reassure the House that a further statement will be issued in due course, which sets out whether, and if so, how the Government intend to take action.
The factual summary of consultation responses is available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/coronial-investigations-of-stillbirths. The document has also been placed in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS105]
Immigration Rules
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I am today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Changes to visitor rules
As set out in the spring Budget 2023, we are amending the list of permitted business activities that can be undertaken by individuals on a UK Visit visa, including by: removing the restriction on visitors working directly with clients in an intra-corporate context, subject to the activity being incidental to their employment abroad and to the delivery of a wider project by the UK branch of their overseas employer; naming remote work as a permitted activity, providing this is not the primary purpose of the visit; expanding the list of unpaid work activities that legal professionals can undertake in the UK, allowing scientists to conduct research in the UK as part of their visit; and allowing pilots and cabin crew members to travel to the UK as part of a Civil Aviation Authority approved wet leasing agreement.
We are also reforming permitted paid engagements (PPE), by including speaking at conferences in the list of permitted engagements. By incorporating the provisions of the route into the standard visitor route, to enable easier switching between PPE activities and the other permitted business activities, and to enable easier travel across the UK border for nationalities eligible to use e-passport gates.
Introduction of new appendix statelessness
We are making changes to the partner and child rules on the statelessness route.
A partner or child will no longer be eligible to apply for permission as a dependent under the stateless route but will instead need to meet the requirements to come to, or stay in, the UK as a partner or child of a stateless person under the family rules in appendix FM. A person who already has permission as a partner or child of a stateless person under the current stateless immigration rules in part 14 will be able to continue to extend their permission or stay in the UK under those provisions.
Changes to the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS)
The EUSS enables EU, other European Economic Area (EEA) and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and their family members, to obtain the immigration status they need to continue living in the UK. We are making two particular changes where the EUSS is concerned.
First, to reinforce the Government approach to tackling illegal migration, we will prevent a valid application to the EUSS as a joining family member being made by an irregular arrival to the UK, which will include small boat arrivals, as well as by an illegal entrant. Second, consistent with the temporary protection of rights conferred on them by the citizens’ rights agreements for three months from their arrival in the UK, we will require a person in the UK as a visitor to make any application to the EUSS as a joining family member within three months of their arrival subject to reasonable grounds for any delay in applying.
Changes to travel document requirements for school groups visiting the UK from France
We are making changes to allow children aged 18 and under, studying at a school in France, to visit the UK on an organised educational trip without the usual passport or visit visa requirements. EU, other EEA and Swiss national children will be able to travel on their national identity card. Visa national children will still be required to travel on their passport but will not have to obtain a visit visa.
Introduction of new appendix victim of domestic abuse
We are introducing an out of country settlement route for victims of transnational marriage abandonment.
Changes to the youth mobility scheme
The youth mobility scheme (YMS) implements the international commitments that have been made to provide cultural exchange programmes for young people.
We are adding Uruguay to the list of countries and territories participating in the YMS and making changes to reflect that the UK’s existing reciprocal, bilateral arrangements with Japan and the Republic of Korea have been enhanced.
The changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 7 December 2023 and will come into effect on various dates between 7 December 2023 and 31 January 2024.
[HCWS106]
Union Connectivity Review
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to announce the UK Government response to Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill’s independent Union connectivity review.
The UK Government have a responsibility to people, businesses and communities throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Our central mission is to deliver sustainable growth and spread opportunity right across the country. Ensuring that we have an accessible, well-connected transport system provides the foundation for achieving this goal and will support every part of the UK in reaching its potential. Our announcement today builds on our £36 billion Network North plan, helping to strengthen connections right across the UK.
Devolution has effectively supported the delivery of many place-specific transport priorities that meet the needs of local communities. It has empowered leaders to deliver solutions for their areas and brought decisions closer to the people affected by them. But it is only the UK Government that can take an overview of our entire strategic transport network. To support this, the UK Government asked Lord Hendy to lead the independent Union connectivity review, the first UK-wide multi-modal strategic transport assessment in a generation.
The Union connectivity review, and our response to it, takes a strategic approach to transport. It recognises that people’s daily journeys—for work, business, leisure, education and health reasons—and the daily movement of goods regularly cross administrative boundaries. And it recognises that, as the Government for the whole of the UK, we should take a strategic approach to make those journeys work for people and business and to strengthen vital transport connections across our country. On behalf of the UK Government, I would like to thank Lord Hendy and his expert panel for their excellent work and thank the many organisations and individuals who contributed to it.
Many of Lord Hendy’s recommendations relate to issues where responsibility for transport is devolved. Where this is the case, we have worked, and will continue to work, collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. While Lord Hendy’s recommendations do not bring forward detailed infrastructure proposals, they do point to further work to identify where, when and what to invest in to improve connectivity and unlock growth opportunities.
In response to the Union connectivity review’s recommendations, we have developed a programme of priority actions to drive forward important work identified by Lord Hendy. We have prioritised actions where we can quickly provide support for promising UK connectivity projects, strengthen working relationships with the devolved Administrations and establish the building blocks for future UK connectivity schemes. Any future investment decisions will be subject to business case.
As well as the billions being redirected from HS2 to invest in transport infrastructure and drive better connectivity, and millions of pounds of funding for reserved transport policy areas, we are designating up to £23 million of funding support for feasibility studies in devolved areas of transport responsibility in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This work will put us, devolved Administrations and local and regional partners in a strong position to assess which schemes could deliver the greatest benefits to people and businesses across the UK, informing future investment decisions about which could be progressed in the long term.
Our priority actions, which include but move beyond our Network North commitments, are:
For Wales connectivity:
Providing an unprecedented £1 billion investment to fund the electrification of the north Wales main line, bringing parts of north Wales within an hour of Manchester and bringing more punctual and reliable journeys on the 105-mile route between Crewe and Holyhead, with connections to Liverpool, Warrington and Wrexham.
Delivering the midlands rail hub in full, with investment increased to £1.75 billion to improve journey times, increase capacity and boost frequency of services, benefiting those travelling between Cardiff and Birmingham.
Providing £2.7 million to Transport for Wales to develop options for upgrades to the south Wales main line, including new stations between Cardiff and the Severn tunnel and increased services between Bristol and west Wales.
Providing £700,000 to Transport for Wales to study options for upgrading Shotton and Chester stations and increasing capacity on the north Wales main line.
For Scotland connectivity:
Committing funding to deliver targeted improvements to the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer, starting with providing £8 million to the Scottish Government to support their business case development.
Committing funding for dualling the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, helping to improve an important route between England and Scotland.
Funding Network Rail to study options for enhancements to improve capacity and journey times on services between England and Scotland.
For Northern Ireland connectivity:
Providing £3.3 million to Translink to deliver a study on the cost, feasibility and value for money of electrification of the railway in Northern Ireland from Belfast to border.
Funding Translink to deliver a £700,000 feasibility study on reopening the Antrim-Lisburn railway line, with an additional stop at Belfast International airport.
Providing £800,000 to Translink to deliver a feasibility study on reinstating the Portadown to Armagh railway line.
Across the UK:
Reforming domestic aviation policy by changing public service obligation (PSO) policy to allow PSOs to operate to and from different regions of the UK, rather than just to and from London as is currently the case.
Reinforcing our commitment to work in partnership with the devolved Administrations through a newly relaunched inter-ministerial group for transport.
As outlined in Network North, some of these projects will be subject to business case approvals.
This programme will not be carried out in isolation. It will be supported by significant long-term work across the UK to deliver fundamental transport connectivity improvements. It will build on other UK Government initiatives, such as Network North, the levelling-up fund and investment zones, that support sustainable growth, increased prosperity and improved productivity across the UK. It will build on our approach to planning that considers land use and transport infrastructure together to deliver the widest possible benefits and unlock greater opportunity. And it will build on the UK Government’s commitment to work constructively and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations across the UK to deliver on our shared ambitions.
Wherever you live, a better-connected UK will bring you closer to social and economic opportunities. That is why the UK Government are determined that our transport infrastructure supports levelling up, brings communities across the UK even closer together and facilitates economic growth by increasing access to skilled labour and opportunities. Our response to the Union connectivity review marks an important step in increasing UK connectivity, supporting growth and delivering the strong, reliable transport connections people depend on every day.
[HCWS102]
Grand Committee
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]
Thursday 7th December 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 View all Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Grand Committee - (6 Dec 2023)
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(1A) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, by regulations made by statutory instrument require conformity assessment bodies to publish reports on the impact of the provisions on the treatment of conformity assessment bodies in Article 8.6 of the CPTPP on the accreditation of goods from CPTPP parties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that UK conformity assessment bodies conduct and publish a report on the impact of the provisions on the treatment of conformity assessment bodies in this Act on the accreditation of goods from CPTPP parties.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is always a reassuring sight on trade Bills in Committee to have a reunion of many of our colleagues who have participated in debates on previous trade Bills. I apologise to the Minister and others that I missed Second Reading; I was out of the country at the time. However, on that visit I was engaged in many discussions about trade, especially access to the EU market. If the Minister and his officials have been able to see the question that I asked the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday, they will be aware of the issues I raised with regard to that visit. I also apologise to the Committee that I will have to leave prematurely to speak in the debate in the Chamber on the relationship between the UK and Latin America. Trade is a considerable part of that relationship, which I will refer to in the Chamber.
At Second Reading there was much debate about the overall view that there is benefit to the United Kingdom’s trade with regard to CPTPP accession. The extent of that, and how we will be able to then utilise some of the benefits that the Minister has said will accrue to UK business, is probably part of this detailed consideration now, going forward. Amendment A1, as well as the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Foster, and some of the others, are probing amendments, to iron out some of the technical aspects of the implementation of our accession and to explore and to hear from the Minister how we would be able to see our businesses take advantage of the opportunities that the Government have said are now open to them.
The first element with regard to standards, assessment of standards and certification, and whether it comes to conformity assessment, is one of these areas that is almost technical in nature but fundamental with regard to our trading relationship. As the Government have said in their own papers, about £10 billion-worth of UK exports to CPTPP economies form some degree of conformity assessment and enter into that market. The fact that there will then be no discrimination for those conformity assessment bodies that would certify goods entering into their markets, as well as those markets’ exports to the UK—there will be equivalent treatment with regard to those—is a positive.
I want to explore just two areas where some element of concern has been raised and ask for further clarification. That primarily regards countries that will be exporting to the UK, which will then have to have their goods assessed for a certificate. We already know in context that the vast majority of that £10 billion—if not all of it—is traded under CE marks already. Only with Brunei and Malaysia will there be some form of difference. We know that, if there is expansion of exports to CPTPP countries, the likelihood is that UK exporters will continue to use CE marking. In fact, as one business said to me, “It is all well and good that the UKCA as well as the conformity assessment will be operating, but we export both to CPTPP countries and we want to have access to the EU market—so we will continue to use the CE markings anyway”. It is likely, as the Minister will know, that countries that operate in exporting to the UK will also take advantage of the agreement that we have made with the European Union to continue to use CE markings anyway.
The issue then will be how we interact with imports to the UK from countries that will not be self-certified and will not use CE markings. My understanding is that, broadly, that will involve medical equipment and machinery, which are important parts of UK trade. As we do not have mutual recognition agreements, a process will have to be carried out so that our conformity assessment bodies can be satisfied that the standards of the equivalent conformity assessment bodies meet our standards for certifying that goods may enter the UK market, especially if the goods constitute medical equipment bought by the NHS. This probing amendment simply asks for there to be a report of the relationship between the UK conformity assessment bodies and those in the CPTPP countries, so that we are operating on the same level of standards.
I found the information from the Welsh Government quite interesting. They raised a slight concern: if there are further trade agreements where we offer equivalence of other certifying bodies but outside a mutual recognition agreement, how will we know that those other conformity assessment bodies will operate to the same standards as ours? I hope the Minister can allay some of that concern.
Fundamentally, we on these Benches wish to see exports grow, and imports of a very high standard. One of the ironies of the CPTPP, as discussed in our previous debates, is that the modest level of growth that is forecast is because we already have well-developed trading relationships with the majority of the members. The combination of the fact that their economies have grown because of their trading relationship with China and that they operate under CE marks to export into the UK means that there is perhaps a limited area of growth. The probing amendment seeks to ensure that, if there are areas of growth, they are equal to the standard that we would want to see. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly join this debate because I am interested in the question of the mutual recognition of conformity assessment. Earlier this year, the Department for Business and Trade said that it would accept CE markings on a range of products for the foreseeable future—or something like that. That led to a certain amount of confusion, with the medical devices industry wondering whether it extended to medical devices. Of course, it did not extend to that industry; the Department of Health and Social Care has that responsibility. If my memory serves me right, the CE marking is certain to be recognised until 2027.
If my noble friend the Minister were to ask me for something we should aim to achieve in the trade and co-operation agreement review, it would certainly be to extend mutual recognition agreements between us and the European Union so that it recognises the UK conformity assessment and we continue to recognise the CE marking. That would afford enormous benefit to the industry.
This is not a mutual recognition agreement; this is giving the opportunity to conformity assessment bodies in CPTPP countries to apply to UK authorities so that, in effect, they provide themselves with UK conformity assessment on their products for trade, presumably within CPTPP countries and with the United Kingdom. Of course, if you are producing products for which you want a UK conformity assessment, being able to do your work according to the UK standards in your own country may well be a useful advantage. That is why it is in Article 8.6 of the CPTPP agreement.
Therefore, I am not sure that we need to worry about the question of “to what standards”. The answer is in the design of this provision. It is to the standard required for a UK conformity assessment. The bodies in any other country that are accredited for this purpose have to work to the same standards as if they were doing so in the UK, so it is pretty straightforward. However, happily, it affords the opportunity to say that there is a step beyond this, which is mutual recognition. For example, among the CPTPP countries one might anticipate, for example in our relationship with Japan at some point, a move on to mutual recognition of conformity assessment, since in many respects the Government naturally are thinking, “That is the territory that we need to go on”. As we develop trade relations and as we develop free trade agreements, eliminating technical barriers to trade should be one of our principal objectives—and this is one important aspect of that.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, explained that this is a probing amendment, so I do not have a great deal to add to what he and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have said.
I pick up on one point: how do we ensure the conformity of that oversight when the products are coming into the UK? In the sixth group, which I do not think we will get to today, we will look at bringing in a good number of impact assessments and reports. The strongest part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is the call for the publishing of a report on the impact of provisions on the treatment of conformity assessment bodies. That will give your Lordships’ House and Parliament the opportunity and oversight to ensure that there is no undercutting of quality and services. However, I am happy to support this probing amendment and look forward to more clarity from the Minister.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I was unable to participate at Second Reading. I was asked by the Lord Speaker to be part of the reception party for the President of South Korea, which was a great honour.
I am very interested in this Bill. I have been involved with Japanese civil servants and Japanese companies in discussions leading up to the UK’s application for accession. I am very much aware of how important it was to the Government of Japan that the UK should accede to this partnership and as early as possible. Many Japanese associates have told me that they welcome that the UK will be able to exercise a de facto joint leadership of this group with Japan in the initial period, which will help ensure that the CPTPP functions efficiently and in the interests of all its members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we do not want the CPTPP to enable substandard goods to come in. Obviously, it will be very good, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, if we can move towards mutual recognition of conformity assessment bodies, especially with countries such as Japan and with other CPTPP members.
However, I am not sure that this amendment is necessary. If the conformity assessment bodies are doing their job, they will have to apply for the granting of equivalents of the standards to which the goods to be imported conform in their own country. Therefore, this amendment is possibly otiose because conformity assessment bodies will have to do this anyway.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene at a late stage on this amendment. I, too, was unable to participate at Second Reading because I could not be there for the whole debate, which I understand the rules, quite rightly, insist on. I apologise for not being able to participate then.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, seems to have a certain similarity to a later amendment in my name, Amendment 27. I have already spoken to my noble friend the Minister informally—I hesitate to say “casually”—and alerted him to the background to that amendment, to which I shall speak when the time comes. Can my noble friend help me by telling me what the relevant conformity standards body is for food and agricultural imports? He will be familiar, I am sure, with the report from the Food Standards Agency in England and the Food Standards Scotland, to which I shall refer in more detail when I speak briefly to my amendment.
I want to congratulate the Government on something that I have been asking for for some 10 years. I understand that they have appointed a larger number of agricultural attachés. The original one was appointed in Beijing by my right honourable friend Liz Truss when she was the Secretary of State for agriculture. If attachés can be placed in countries such as those referred to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, including Japan and others, under this agreement, it will be an enormous boost. I applaud that. If my noble friend the Minister cannot answer today, could he provide the Committee with details on what part of the cost the farming and food sector would have to pay and which part the Government may pick up, because it would be an enormous investment?
As I said, I would be interested to know also which conformity standards body would be relevant to food and agricultural products, but I shall keep my main thoughts for when I speak to my own amendment in more detail.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I greet noble Lords who have been kind enough to come back for another wonderful discussion on the merits and benefits of free trade that will be visited upon our nation thanks to the vision of this Government in seeking to apply to and being successfully admitted, we hope, to the CPTPP. I am grateful to noble Lords for continuing their discussions, particularly those who have tabled amendments, and for the interlocution that we have had up until now, which has allowed us to have a good debate. I hope that they are well aware that I am available to them continuously to make sure that we draft the right legislation and profit from these free trade agreements.
I shall take the amendments one at a time if I may, though in this instance I think they are quite well grouped. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, well covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. There is no derogation of standards. This is not about standards; it is quite a helpful and straightforward process of authorising conformity assessment bodies to perform a function which, in many instances, they may already be doing—there may be mutual recognition in some areas and there may be other standards being undertaken or tested for. It simply allows the Secretary of State to authorise CABs to approve the activities of a CAB in a CPTPP country. Very importantly—we forget this, because often we look only one way in these agreements—CABs in CPTPP countries can authorise activities in the United Kingdom so that we can export more efficiently. It is of enormous assistance to industry, without question.
I have just been told the answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question: UKAS is the conformity assessment body for agricultural standards. That answer came through just at the right time, but, as always, I am happy to write to noble Lords if I do not have the specific information. On CABs, the statutory instruments or secondary legislation that will come from this will cover a whole range of specialist and manufactured goods.
I feel I have been brief, but I believe everything has been covered in the discussion, unless I have missed anything. This is not about regulations, changing standards or anything like that; it is about a straightforward process where conformity assessment bodies can be authorised to follow whatever standards the domestic CABs wish them to follow in any CPTPP country. This strikes me as eminently sensible, and we very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would be comfortable with withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to Members who took part in this short debate. I like the Minister, and his enthusiasm for the 0.08% bounty to our economy from this Government’s vision is infectious. But we want businesses to take the opportunities from this.
I have a couple of points that the Minister might want to write to us about. If he will forgive me, the question I neglected to ask in moving the amendment is a concern that still plays slightly on my mind. If the United Kingdom Accreditation Service is now approving those within CPTPP countries, will those accreditation bodies be sufficiently aware of the Windsor agreement and the internal market of the UK? As the Minister knows, there is not just the UK certification badge on goods; if it is to do with the Northern Ireland market, there is also the UKNI certification process. This is complicated—we have debated it long and hard—and it will be a task for our accreditation service to judge whether the bodies within CPTPP countries are sufficiently qualified to understand our market and entering goods into all parts of the UK market, not just GB.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly said, there is currently a workaround for this because of the CE markings. From my point of view, it would be eminently sensible if we just kept that going on in perpetuity. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, may have issues with that, because it would mean that we would have to maintain EU standards in perpetuity too—so there would perhaps be consequences to that. In the absence of mutual recognition agreements, we will probably have to keep an eye on this. I am aware that there are some MRAs within and between CPTPP countries, and whether we wish to take the next step forward with those countries is an interesting issue. I am certainly very open-minded about that, because it makes eminent sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated.
Fundamentally, if we are to approve other bodies, it would be helpful to know, through a report, which bodies have been approved, which have not and why. If they are not able to certify goods properly within the categories that are not self-certifiable under the WTO, there will still be that lingering doubt that goods will be entering into the UK market without the proper process. If there is a reason why our accreditation bodies have not approved them, there is a reason why those goods should not necessarily enter into the UK market.
I hear what the Minister said. Can he give an indication about whether he will write to me on Northern Ireland? He is nodding from a sedentary position, but is he willing to intervene?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I will do that and, on the other point, clarify where I think there may be a misunderstanding about the conformity assessment bodies and our current imports. Do not forget that we already import a great deal from CPTPP countries without this arrangement in place; this just facilitates the effectiveness of the CABs internationally and vice versa. I hope we can clarify that—I can write to Members to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for that—as we know, there are currently imports under both the WTO approach and the CE markings, so, if this is moving away from that, a little understanding is needed. On Northern Ireland in particular, I am grateful that the Minister said he would write. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
We come now to Amendment 1, which, strangely enough, is not the first amendment, but there we are. Amendment 1 and Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all go to the same point; it is just that Amendments 2 to 7 are concerned with the schedules that flow from Clause 3.
We have now moved to the question of the Procurement Act. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is correct that the trade hacks have got together for this one, but there were procurement hacks as well, of which I was one. Some of us have returned; not many, but one or two of us—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a procurement hack, is in his place. It is quite amusing really because it is only a matter of a few months back that we were debating the Procurement Bill. Among other things, it created a mechanism by which the Government could designate, under statutory instruments, that additional countries with which we had entered into an international agreement should be added to Schedule 9 to the Procurement Act as treaty state suppliers, and by extension therefore get the benefit of the treaty state supplier provisions under that Act.
However, the Procurement Act, notwithstanding that it passed through Parliament, has not yet been commenced. We are reliably informed that that will not happen until October 2024, whereas under the CPTPP we are looking to achieve ratification before 16 July 2024—and some time earlier than that, I hope. There is a gap between the commencement of the provisions under the CPTPP and our treaty obligations and the point at which the Procurement Act comes into force and those procurement-related obligations are in our domestic legislation.
This legislation fills that gap by doing two things: using the opportunity to amend the Procurement Act when it comes into force by adding CPTPP as an international agreement in Schedule 9, and, further—which is why the other six amendments are linked—changing the public contract regulations in various respects between now and the point at which they are all replaced by the Procurement Act being brought into force.
Just to make life even more entertaining, the Procurement Act repealed the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act, which we spent quite a bit time on. I am hoping that the power to bring Australia and New Zealand in was achieved by that Act, and it will be overtaken by the Procurement Act.
We come to procurement. Clause 3(3) adds CPTPP to the list of treaty state suppliers in the Procurement Act. It may be that we have a debate about whether Parliament should approve these things in future, but the fact is that, in future, when we have free trade agreements, we will see regulations brought forward under the Procurement Act to add treaty state suppliers, so this is perhaps the last time that we will do this through primary legislation rather than secondary legislation.
Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 sets out which are exempted contracts under the Act. Paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 specifies that, among those exemptions, is,
“A contract awarded under a procedure … adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member, and … that is inconsistent in any material respect with the procedure for the award of the contract in accordance with this Act”.
That latter sentence is pretty much the same in all these provisions, but it is helpful for noble Lords to remember the first part, as that is where this legislation will sit.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Committee is in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He is rare among us in being able to identify the questions, ask them and then come up with a sensible answer, all in one. He did so on this. I am slightly anxious, because he took away the only thing I was going to mention: tied aid and some of the experiences that we have unfortunately had with it—we have banned it in the UK—and the Pergau dam situation with regards to contracts that have been issued. We have memories of how this can go awry.
I record a recent visit I made to Vietnam. I wish to see UK trade with Vietnam grow and am very supportive of any areas in which we can make that happen, but in some CPTPP member countries it is less clear than it is in the UK what the balance is between private and public enterprises and what are the funding mechanisms of bodies that would be open to potentially benefit from UK procurement access. The noble Lord asked valid questions, and I have a degree of sympathy with his conclusion that it would be worth accepting his amendment.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, there is very little to add to the detailed probing question—and answers—from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it is a constant pleasure to debate with such intellectual firepowers as the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. It is a joy to learn new things, every day, about the opportunities and benefits of free trade, particularly the CPTPP treaty itself.
However, in this instance, the Government are not keen to accept the amendment, for the simple reason that this strikes me as an absolutely eminent clarification of the procurement relationship between a UK procurer covered by the CPTPP legislation and the international procurer who would not be covered by it. It clarifies the point that, if we are in a minority funding position, we have to be in a majority funding position in order to qualify under our own procurement legislation.
Therefore, this does something very sensible: it confirms that point. I am happy to clarify this further with the noble Lord outside this room, but it would be difficult for procuring agents in the UK who were not in control of the funding process to conform to the CPTPP procurement funding processes or our own national processes. That is why this is clarified. Otherwise, if you have a minority position, you do not have control over it—if you are putting in only a small amount of capital, it makes sense for the international body to make the procurement decisions.
Maybe I have missed something, but this strikes me as quite straightforward. I felt that, of all the amendments placed today, what we were doing here seemed to make things easier and clearer, rather than more opaque.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I intervene just to pre-empt my subsequent remarks. We are in Committee and may not need to return to this on Report, but it would be jolly useful to run through some case studies to examine how this works. My noble friend might help here, but this relates to whether it is exempted from covered procurement under UK procurement law. That may mean that there is less of a problem, but there is none the less a risk that these are procurements that may happen in the United Kingdom—Pergau dam buying consultant engineering services, for example. We might take that and say, “Here is a big engineering project in a developing country, and the procurement includes consulting engineering services in the United Kingdom. Do we need to know whether that it is wholly or mainly funded?” Maybe we could work through some case studies.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. The principle here is ensuring that our procurement laws cover our own activities, so it is right to clarify where that is the case. I am happy to write further on this matter. I do not see anything wrong here and, in fact, I suggested to my officials before this debate that we look specifically at an example that could help to illustrate this—one floated earlier, concerning World Bank funding, would be very good to follow up on. We are happy to demonstrate that. However, this seems eminently sensible, so, unless it were felt otherwise, I would be reluctant to give way on this point, which clarifies the issue very well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I sense that the Committee would be happy for us to take this away and look at it. We may or may not need to return to it on Report, but I am grateful to my noble friend for that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe whether the concept of “established by use” has meaning under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Lord Lansley (Con)
This is another technical amendment to a technical Bill. It seeks to understand why the language of the Bill is precisely as it is. We are dealing here with geographical indications—GIs—and the circumstances in which a GI conflicts with a trademark.
What is a trademark? A trademark is something that is registered as such under the Trade Marks Act 1994, and it distinguishes the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Interestingly, Section 2 of that Act says:
“A registered trade mark is a property right … No proceedings lie to prevent or recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trade mark”.
So our starting point is that there are registered trademarks, in which rights lie, and unregistered trademarks do not enjoy that protection.
We are amending what I think is retained EU law—namely, regulation 1151/2012, Article 6 of which says that, in relation to a conflict between a potential designation for a GI and a trademark, the GI should be refused only if,
“in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used”,
it
“would be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product”.
That is the context of this. If the combination of the GI and the trademark could mislead consumers, you have a problem and should therefore not allow the GI to be so designated. The bit on misleading the consumer has not been carried through, but maybe it is not necessary.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The Trade Marks Act 1994 at no point uses the phrase “established by use”. However, it specifically makes provision for registered trademarks, whereas—this was the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley; he may be wrong and looking for clarification from the Minister—if it is established by use then it would presumably be unregistered, as he said. Therefore, would it not be subject to common law through the concept known as “passing off”? With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I am grateful to noble Lords for their points. Clearly, it is easy to confuse trademarks and geographical indications. With geographical indications, there is a principle of established use, whereas with trademarks, something is either trademarked or it is not. That is why we are comfortable with the language as it sits.
There is no reference in the Trade Marks Act 1994 to the concept of “established by use”, because the concept refers to unregistered trademarks, whereas the Trade Marks Act is concerned principally with protections conferred on registered marks. However, “established by use” has meaning under the law relating to geographical indications.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I remain confused because, in Clause 4(3), “established by use” relates to the trademark and not to the GI. I see the point that my noble friend makes, but where is the concept of a trademark established by use?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise to my noble friend, but that is not how I read it. It is linked to designation—that is, if origin and geographical indication conflict with trademarks. It would be logical that “established by use” is in relation to geographical indications. I am afraid that that is how I have read it. I do not think that there is an inconsistency. As with all things, I am very comfortable having a further look at it, but I think it would be an issue if we took out “established by use” and inserted
“in use prior to that date”,
which could result in applications for GIs being rejected under our amended rule, which is not required under CPTPP.
It is important to note that this authority allows the Secretary of State to restrict the use of a geographical indication if it is likely to cause confusion for any GIs that come in after accession or after this Bill becomes an Act. Clearly, she must have an eye to the UK legislative framework. The provision gives her the power to clarify the geographical indications. I do not believe that I have missed anything, but I am probably about to be corrected.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
You are not—I would not dream of doing so—but I think the point made by the noble Lord is worth further consideration. My—relatively recent—reading of it is that we are pointing in two directions. There is a question about trademarks and how they may or may not be protected consequent on us joining the CPTPP; there is also the question of the very new idea of GIs. They are recent inventions and I do not think we have quite tracked out where they go and what they do. For example, if Melton Mowbray pies are to become a standard under which we take this forward, we need to think quite carefully about what that means in relation to the countries that we are joining, because the tradition there is completely different. I am not saying that the wording is wrong, but it would be helpful to have a discussion offline.
I have always found in these matters—others will have heard me on this—that there is a small group in your Lordships’ House who really understand and like intellectual property. It has a nasty habit of tripping you up if you do not get it right first time round, and we might be in that sort of territory here.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that he does not feel that I have been tripped up by this. I am very comfortable with what we have drafted. It gives protections in the right way for GIs which are established by use, and it clarifies the difference between those and trademarks. As with all things, it is important that we have a deep discussion about this, so I am very comfortable having further debates about it. We will no doubt return to this matter, because it is important. It is not a political point to make but a technical point to ensure that we are doing it in the right way. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, GIs are a relatively new concept. At the same time, it makes sense to ensure that our historical GIs which have been in established use are properly protected. We have the opportunity to protect them into the future against other GIs that may cause confusion with commercial intent.
I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but, clearly, we are happy to have further discussions and I am sure that my officials will engage on that at the first possible opportunity.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I am very happy to proceed on the basis he proposes, but I say that the way it is structured at the moment, “established by use” relates to the trademark, not to the GI, so the concept of a trademark established by use in statute when it is not in the Trade Marks Act seems a potential problem. I leave that thought. We will talk about it more and may need to come back to it, just as we did on the preceding group. I am grateful to my noble friend for his willingness to have a good look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(13) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before Parliament on—(a) protections for UK geographical indicators in territories of each CPTPP party, and(b) accountability of the self-certification on rules of origin.”Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before parliament on protections for UK geographical indicators and accountability surrounding the self-certification of the rules of origin in each CPTPP country.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 8A builds on Amendment 8 to some extent because it also relates to geographical indications, and if there is to be further information from the Government with regard to the interaction with trademarks, I look forward to seeing it. It is linked. As someone who lives in and represented a consistency in Scotland, I know that there are particular aspects with regard to the Scottish and Welsh Governments and geographical indications in those areas. Indeed, it could well be that there are trademarks for certain products in those areas. If we are now in a situation where there is to be wider use of other CPTPP countries’ trademarks and geographical indications that are not to be policed under this treaty, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised are valid. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but they are valid. I cannot speak on behalf of the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government, nor would I wish to, but the issues that they have raised are important.
Mine is another probing amendment and, indeed, another reporting amendment because it is seeking reports on how businesses are operating in what is potentially a more complex environment in addition to better market opportunities. Ultimately, where the treaty is going to be a success or failure is in whether our businesses understand what opportunities are available to them or whether they decide that there are more complexities in utilising some of the agreement than there will be economic benefits for them. For very small businesses that may be valid, given, as we know, that it is not the tariff aspect of this agreement that is important but the non-tariff aspects. Regular reporting on the protection of UK GIs in this market will therefore be very important. As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to GIs there are no more protections under this agreement, but the interaction with how we will be able to export very important UK GI goods will be vital.
The Minister will be well aware that very many businesses manufacturing products that benefit from an EU-protected UK GI are small businesses. Melton Mowbray is one example, as was mentioned, but there is a whole series. They are small businesses—some are micro-businesses—and therefore the complexities involved will require government help. Guidance and support will be vital for them. We know, because we debated it at length on the Australia agreement, that the protection of UK GIs in Australia, as it will be in many areas, is dependent on the European Union policing them, because that is a consequence of the UK agreement with the European Union. Our ability to police the protection of our GIs now resides in Brussels. That may or may not be desirable, depending on your particular persuasion, but it is a fact. The relationship and interaction with the European Union on this will therefore also be very important. GI protection for UK accession to the CPTPP is reliant on the European Union. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what discussions he has had with his counterpart, the European Trade Commissioner, about how the EU is minded about doing us the wee favour of protecting our goods in the CPTPP agreement. Is there a written understanding when it comes to UK accession to CPTPP that the Commission will police our goods for us because that is the situation in Australia?
Given that the vast majority of the CPTPP countries have trade agreements with the European Union, it will police both: it will police its champagne and our pork pies. I wonder which it will give preference to? Of course, they match, and they should have equal status for protections, but I would be grateful to hear what response the Minister has had to his pleas that the European Union will protect us.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 34 is in my name. I first have to repeat what I discover is true of quite a few participants in today’s debate: I did not speak at Second Reading. I am afraid my excuse is not quite as good as those of some Members, as I was on holiday, so I ask noble Lords to forgive me for that. It was arranged some time before.
I understand that it is not in order to give a Second Reading speech and I do not intend to do so. However, I will say that I am in favour of free trade—of ever loosening-up trade—and I recognise the remarks that the Minister made at Second Reading and has repeated in today’s discussions. I could chase that issue but I will resist the temptation, except to say that free trade comes with conditions. The “free” aspect has limits, which have regard to wider policies, most obviously climate change but there is also food safety—the whole range. They are part of the process of agreeing free trade, and the objective of free trade should not supersede those other objectives. They have to work together; we have to find a balance between them and I accept that. In addition, I point out that this is an advance in free trade. The biggest blow that we have had to widening free trade over the last 10 years is of course, Brexit—I will leave that one there.
My amendment introduces some requirements on the Secretary of State. On reflection, it does not fit all that well with the first amendment in this group. However, we are where we are, and the common theme is placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to report. This is one of the shortcomings of the Bill. It is of course only narrowly focused on the technical aspects that require changes in domestic legislation, the treaty having been decided and promulgated on the royal prerogative, hence the involvement of Parliament in drawing up what is, effectively, a form of legislation has been limited. We have two committees which look at these sorts of issues, and I understand that we are still waiting to hear their views on the overall structure; here we are just looking at these technical aspects. Having said that, it is reasonable to introduce these obligations on the Secretary of State. They are broadly self-explanatory; it does not need me to explain to your Lordships the importance of these requirements of policy that have to fit with freer trade.
I will say just a bit more about proposed new subsection (1)(b), on the importance of the precautionary principle. As ever, it is a question of balance. You can carry the precautionary principle too far but it comes into this discussion. My understanding is that the CPTPP preferences the science-based approach to regulation over and above the precautionary principle in what is acceptable in limitations. The science-based approach requires parties to demonstrate a scientific basis for regulation, which could of course be a problem where there is no such basis, there are no means to develop it, or scientific papers have been published by an industry which has a vested interest in avoiding the difficult questions of supporting a particular outcome. Therefore, I stress that it is important that we understand the extent to which the precautionary principle has been superseded by vested interests in particular approaches. This is not a new principle; it is there in the Environment Act 2021. I should like the Minister to say in reply that he understands that issue, and perhaps it could be discussed in more detail prior to Report.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I will say a brief word on Amendment 8A. Contrary to the habit of a lifetime, I played by the rules and did speak at Second Reading. I made clear that I warmly welcome our accession to the CPTPP and that I have no difficulty with the main points in this Bill.
On Amendment 8A, I am sympathetic, but I think that one needs to think quite hard about the timing. Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Government would be required to submit reports on two important areas of performance: how the—very welcome—rules of origin provisions are working out, and how respect for geographical indications is being honoured.
I do not know when our accession will take effect—none of us does—because it will depend on who is last to ratify our accession. It is conceivable that it might take all of 12 months or more than 12 months before this happens. To say that the report will be required within 12 months of our passing the Act is slightly odd. If the report is going to be useful, it needs to take account of what has actually gone on—the experience—with regard to how the rules of origin are being respected and how self-certification of rules of origin is working out.
Although I support the principle of the report—because these are both extremely important provisions within the CPTPP, and a report to see how they are working out seems a good idea—I really do not think that it is a good idea to ask the Government to do so within 12 months of the passing of the Act.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I am afraid that I was not present for the Second Reading debate—I was with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who spoke earlier on, as the other half of the reception committee that welcomed the President of the Republic of Korea. I hope that we played our small part in deepening the friendship and relationship between this country and the wonderful, vibrant democracy of the Republic of Korea, with which I hope we will deepen our trade relations as the years go by.
I also have an amendment for consideration later, which will probably be reached on our second day in Committee. It also has within it a reporting mechanism. I agree with my noble friend that 12 months may not be the right time, but the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, are right to have both articulated the need for Parliament to have reports laid before it. That is the principle, but how one does that, the mechanisms that we use and the timeframes we place on it are surely open to discussion. The Government should not quail at the idea of there being time for Parliament to look back at what has happened to something such as the CPTPP. I must say that I also welcome the CPTPP; I strongly believe that the Government have done the right thing in promoting this opportunity for the United Kingdom. I have no issues whatever with that; my issues would come later about some of the partners we might have in the future. We will discuss that later on.
This idea that Parliament should discuss the nature of trade is not new. With the help of the House of Lords Library, I was looking at the debates that took place in 1857 when the great champion of free trade, Richard Cobden, denounced the opium trade in a three-day debate in which two relatively young MPs—William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli—joined forces across the political divide to support him, just as Cobden had stood with William Wilberforce in denouncing the trade in human beings. He was against the slave trade. There were red lines not to be crossed.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. Like others, I will declare whether I spoke at Second Reading—the answer is that I did. I entirely agree with the Minister’s earlier remarks that we should learn something new every day. When I was a member of the International Agreements Committee, I learned a great deal from some of its members who are present today and I continue to learn from them—not least the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Purvis.
I will pick up a very small point, which has not quite been covered, on rules of origin. As everyone is well aware, the rules of origin chapters in all our free trade agreements are incredibly complicated, as is the way in which different bodies will have to check whether they have been complied with. I notice with great interest that a report was carried out into whether the UK was suitable for membership of the CPTPP, in which CPTPP countries checked out, through a round of questions and discussions, for example, our ability to comply with its rules of origin requirements. Bearing in mind that we already have trade agreements with a number of CPTPP members—Australia, New Zealand and so on—we know that there are details in the agreement on how rules of origin will be checked out. As part of that procedure, there will be a working party on rules of origin between, for instance, New Zealand and us for its trade deal and one between Australia and us for its trade deal. I have been unable to locate details of whether there is to be a similar committee, ad hoc group or working party that will look at compliance with rules of origin. Can the Minister tell us whether that is the case?
The ultimate arbiter of whether rules of origin have been complied with will be the customs organisations in the relevant member countries. They include our customs services, which will be required to make decisions about whether to investigate particular cases in relation to compliance with rules of origin. Given the possibility that there can be goods coming from, say, Australia to the UK using the Australia free trade agreement or the CPTPP arrangements, with a slightly different rules of origin arrangement, as my noble friend pointed out, this is clearly a very complex issue for the customs authorities. Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that appropriate support, finances, additional personnel and training are being provided to our customs services to enable them to carry out this difficult task, particularly when other member countries have had time to interrogate whether we are up to scratch but we have not yet had an opportunity to check whether the other member countries are up to scratch?
Lord Lansley (Con)
I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords of my registered interest as the UK co-chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, in so far as Japan is a member of the CPTPP—and, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, not only a member but a leading advocate of UK membership, for which we are very grateful.
I am reminded by the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on his amendment, that, in the past, when we have been looking at the free trade agreements into which we have entered with Australia and Japan, in both cases we anticipated that, in time, we would enjoy the protection of our GIs in those countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, where Australia is concerned, that was contingent upon the Australia-EU agreement. As far as I can tell, although the Australian Government have undertaken their own study, there is no such agreement, so presumably there has been no action.
My questions are these. First, are we making any moves with our Australian friends under our free trade agreement with them to proceed, notwithstanding the absence of an EU agreement with Australia? It seems very unwise and unhelpful for us to be tied to the EU agreement. Secondly, Japan was very willing to consider it, but it was going to be considered under its procedures and that was going to take some time. Are we making progress? It would be great to know that we are. I think there is a willing and important market for UK goods with geographical indications and so on in Japan, even where Scotch whisky is concerned. I think this is the case in many other CPTPP countries, so it is quite important that we get that GI protection. I hope my noble friend can say something, if not now then at a later stage, about the progress we are making with Japan and Australia on getting our GIs recognised there.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said. There is considerable room for confusion between trademarks and geographic indications, a relatively new concept, especially the application of restrictions or protections for geographic indications in countries whose language is not only not English but is far away from any language used in the European Union. Consider, for example, suits. A common word for a suit of clothes in Japanese is “sebiro”, which comes from “Savile Row”. Is that not a kind of geographic indication? I think there is scope for considerable confusion there.
The other amendment in this group, Amendment 34, was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I worry about giving additional protection to the precautionary principle. Putting too much store by the precautionary principle has led us to be too averse to risk in many aspects of our national life and it is likely to lead to restrictions on the economic growth that we so badly need. Our accession to CPTPP is an opportunity to enhance that growth by developing more trade with the fastest-growing part of the world, including countries which place less store on the precautionary principle. I worry that, if we try to export the unduly cumbersome regulatory regime that we have had until now into countries that are growing faster and which have a more proportionate approach to the subject, it will cause, at best, restrictions on us taking up the opportunities that are available.
Lastly, I entirely agree with the good point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that our accession may not take effect until a year or more after the passage of the Act, and so the question of the timing of the report being made to Parliament is a very appropriate one.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, let us deal with this Second Reading issue. My understanding of the Companion is that there is no need to have spoken at Second Reading. It is very nice that noble Lords have apologised but there is no need; all are welcome in Committee, even if they did not speak at Second Reading, and so noble Lords do not need to give excuses for why they were not there.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, touched on a point about restrictions. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies is a neat way of dealing with a number of the issues that will arise and that we will need to deal with. Let us take environmental principles and look at a number of the countries that we will be joining with in CPTPP. Take pesticides, which I am sure will come up again in the next group, on our second day in Committee. PAN UK analysis conducted in 2021 revealed that there are 119 pesticides, active substances, that we have banned in the UK to protect our health and environment but which are still permitted in one or more of the CPTTP member countries. Of that total, 67 are classified as highly hazardous pesticides. If these pesticides are used in these countries just now, and we have banned them in this country for very good and sensible reasons, how do the department and the Government protect consumers and farmers in the UK? The way to do that is very neatly set out in the amendment laid by my noble friend about taking note of this and the Secretary of State having to deal with it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, apropos of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, it is important not to get carried away by the precautionary principle because it introduces difficult conflicts in the arrangements of our own law. The precautionary principle owes a great deal to the civil law tradition and its code-based arrangements, whereas our common-law approach is much more open and based on case law, and it is more conducive to our businesses.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank everyone who attended Second Reading. It seems a very few did; I do not know where everyone has come from since then. I was there. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who recommended that I read the Hansard of the Second Reading, which I thought was peculiar, since I definitely remember being there, but maybe it was an avatar or a creation. None the less, it is important that people feel that they can come into and out of these different discussions to add value where they can.
I shall try to answer these very important points in order, but please forgive me if I miss anything because I want to make sure that we have a chance to go through them. I shall begin by addressing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as much as the amendment itself. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the same point slightly earlier, which I did not cover, about our agricultural attachés and the importance of making the most of our free trade agreements. I completely agree that there is an unlimited amount that any Government can do to promote the advantages of free trade and the free trade agreements, so I am keen and open, as is the department, to hear any views or suggestions that we can deploy effectively and cost-effectively to spread the word. It is why these debates are so important.
It is also why the initiatives we have taken are very relevant. We are assessing a range of different options, including using AI to feed into information we get from HMRC on what companies are engaged in or where they are already exporting to. Where there may be overlaps, we can then contact the companies and promote the different free trade options. It is complicated, but essential because if we do not promote the free trade options, what are we doing having these lengthy debates about free trade agreements? I am happy to be pressed on that. Clearly, it is important that the department reports on the assistance it gives to exporters, and it does. For example, earlier today I was talking to one of our IT staff who was presenting to me the effects that their specific system is having on exports. He listed a very significant total which he said was growing continually. These sorts of areas are reported on, and they should be. We should be held to account on that.
When it comes to specific reports on the effect on GIs, the noble Lord is trying to approach two concepts, as I understand it. First, there will be derogative elements on GIs, so have we protected our GIs and is there a protection regime being effectively deployed on account of us joining the CPTPP? That is difficult to do because not all countries have a multilateral agreement rather than a single country-to-country free trade agreement, and not all countries—I am afraid I cannot recall which ones but Australia and New Zealand in relation to our relationship via the EU is a good example—have geographical indications regimes, so it would not count; they could not police it. However, by having these stated relationships and highlighting these principles, we already go a long way to effectively protecting our GIs in CPTPP countries because we have a forum in which we can have open and frank discussions. It is clearly not in any country’s interest to derogate another country’s trademark policies, GIs or whatever. It would be difficult to apply this piece, but I am fully aware of the importance of making sure that this is clearly monitored.
The second part goes back to my first answer, which was about how we make the most of our GIs, such as cheddar cheese or whatever. We continue to invest particularly in the area of agriculture. I think we have one dozen—it may be nine, but between nine and 12—agricultural attachés placed around the world, funded by Defra and supported by the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is a multistrand initiative, which we think is very important in order to promote these products. Scotch whisky has been mentioned. As we are aware, tariffs into Malaysia will be reduced in gradations from 80%—a rate which effectively doubles the price of a bottle of whisky—to effectively zero over the next 10 years. These are important changes. I see them as agricultural products—food, drink and agricultural products linking together to be supported.
A number of noble Peers rightly raised the point about reporting. I will not go into all the different details, but I will try to touch on them. I would be reluctant—we will have this debate in the next Committee session on 14 December—statutorily to oblige the Secretary of State to undertake significant, specific levels of reporting. Noble Lords might say that that is because I am a government Minister, and officials always tell Ministers to avoid producing statutory reports. As a civilian, before I entered this job, I asked, “Why are we not producing more reports?” Having gone into the Government, I now realise that you can produce a lot of reports, but the problem is that if they are statutory government reports, the principles behind them can often become outdated very fast, so you lose flexibility. They are also enormously costly to produce. I see how the government machine functions: it rightly respects Parliament and its writ and so wants to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, so you often end up producing supposedly very comprehensive reports that do not really tell us what we are looking for.
What we have agreed to and will see over the next period is much more useful. In 2024, CPTPP countries will do a review of CPTPP and how it has worked. Two years after our accession to the treaty we will produce a summary report on the effects of CPTPP, and after five years we will produce a full report. It would be more useful to clarify the sorts of areas we wish to cover in those reports. We had this debate with Australia and New Zealand, and we came to some sensible conclusions. I was very happy giving Dispatch Box commitments, as a government Minister, that these will be the so-called obvious areas that we will want to investigate. Clearly one of them will be whether we have protected our intellectual property of whatever type, and others will be the effect on the environment and on standards, if any.
On that, to go to my next point, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised in association with his amendment, I think there has been some misunderstanding as to what a free trade agreement is. A free trade agreement does not change anything about UK standards. We already trade with all those countries significantly, such as with Malaysia. Perhaps I should raise my interests so they are on record: I have done a huge amount of business in the past with all those countries, and I still have interests in companies that operate in them—maybe I should have said it at the beginning, although I do not think it is relevant to this debate. However, I was doing business there when we did not have the CPTPP, so it does not make any difference to the standards employed in this country—there is no derogation from our standards.
If my officials agree, I will read from the excellent report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which your Lordships will all have read and which I think came out today—I am never quite sure what is in the public domain or not, but this is. I shall read out only two questions. Question 1 is:
“Does CPTPP require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to (a) animal or plant life or health, (b) animal welfare, and (c) environmental protection? Answer: No”.
Question 2 is:
“Does CPTPP reinforce the UK’s levels of statutory protection in these areas? Answer: Yes”.
That is pretty relevant for me—I hope your Lordships do not think I am being glib, because clearly the report says more than that. However, that is an important assessment—I think some noble Lords sit on the TAC, but maybe not those in the Room today. It is not about derogating our standards in any way but is particularly about making sure that our businesses can deploy their skill sets and expertise more effectively, with less friction and with lower tariffs, which is good for the consumer and for our businesses. However, it does not change our standards, or, by the way, the standards of the countries to which we are exporting.
I will roll on to the other points, which are on the rules of origin. It is perfectly normal for traders to self-certify, and in fact, that is what we want. I have visited freeports recently, another great initiative of this Government, so I have seen a number of port activities. Efficient port activities rely on ad hoc inspections, therefore risk-based approaches to customs clearances for most things, and that is absolutely right. Although the rules of origin are complicated, and there are varying channels of rules of origin, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, so rightly pointed out, it is up to the company to choose the avenue that it uses. I believe that we have the right resources to make sure that our rules of origin processes are properly checked, and I have continued to check that. However, there is also a committee in CPTPP on the rules of origin so this can be further discussed and clarified. It met last month and we attended it as an acceding member, so we are already participating in this, which is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly raised the principle around the timing of the report; I think I covered that point in the sense that certainly after 12 months it would be unhelpful to produce a report on anything, frankly. However, if we are going to produce a report after two years, which we have committed to do, I am very happy to have further discussions about what will be in that report and what will be in the five-year report.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the extremely close relationship that we have with Korea— rather than attend the Second Reading, he and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, attended the address by President Yoon. That is a good example in that although South Korea is not a member of CPTPP, we celebrated, thanks to the good works of the investment team, over £20 billion-worth of investment in the UK. That was a significant celebration of the depth of our relationship with Korea—if I may say that as an aside and champion the investment department at the Department for Business and Trade.
I will cover two points on the precautionary principle, which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, raised, which is important, and it is clearly in this amendment. The precautionary principle already exists in the Environment Act 2021, so I think the Secretary of State has to have an eye to it in her activities, as do all Secretaries of State. To add it into this free trade agreement would create unnecessary duplication and parallel obligations, which causes confusion for businesses and countries.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister is quite correct. It is in a statement associated with the Act, but it applies only to the environment. Of course, the trade under this Bill goes somewhat wider, and there is just the thought that it should apply more broadly across the potential changes in protections.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment; I am happy to have a discussion with him and other noble Lords about this. We would resist this significantly. It would cause confusion to have parallel principles around how the Secretary of State should act in relation to this FTA and in other areas, in terms of how we manage our own economy and how we check our supply chains. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, was right to raise the concept of supply chains; I have conversations with many noble Lords in many instances about the principles around how we protect our products in this country from supply chains that we find are either not aligned with our values—as well raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—or lack competitive advantage. I have great sympathy in particular with the agriculture sector, with which I have engaged significantly and which says that it is not about free trade but that we are obliged to conform to standards that are significantly higher than in other countries. It is classified as unfair, and we are very sensitive to that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for referring explicitly to the supply chain issue. It should form the basis of further discussion, perhaps outside the Committee and before we get to Report. If we look at the requirements under the 2015 modern slavery legislation—pioneered by the Minister’s right honourable friend Theresa May during her time in the Home Office—we see that it places duties on us to look at the way in which products have been manufactured. It is not just about the precautionary principle; this is asking us, every time we take decisions about things that we are going to purchase in this country, what the supply chain was. It is not just about free trade; it is about fair trade. How can manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom possibly compete if people are using slave labour in places in Xinjiang?
I take the Minister back, if I may, to the amendments that I moved during the passage of the Trade Act 2021 and the Health and Care Act 2022 and, indeed—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others will recall—the Procurement Act 2023. They all looked at our duties and obligations under the 2015 legislation. By very significant margins, cross-party amendments were added to all those pieces of legislation. I simply ask the Minister: how will we comply with the 2015 Act? Would he agree to have discussions outside the Committee before we go further on that point?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I absolutely make myself available to have discussions outside this Committee on all points. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to my original statement that collaboration around this is very high.
I will try to make a philosophical point which I think is very important: this is a free trade agreement. It is concerned principally with tariffs, smooth movement of trade and other principles. It is very important to separate that from the important standards that we hold ourselves to in this country. It is right that we have a number of very important pieces of legislation that drive standards in supply chains. Any of us who have been involved in business know that we have to ascertain our supply chains. In other areas, particularly in relation to the environment, I believe that supply chains are covered very well by our legal processes in terms of child slavery and other abhorrent activities. That is well understood and the supply chain obligations are very clearly understood. In the environment, it is still more nuanced. It will always be a complex area, because other geographies clearly have different environmental advantages and disadvantages compared with us. We are still working on that, but it is for a separate track of legislation. I do not think that it is right to confuse the principles of the legislation around free trade agreements with legislation around our own supply chain obligations.
When given the decision, should one be in a free trade area, able to bring to bear one’s own values to make necessary changes, or not be, because you do not believe that the participant parties are aligned with your values? I would prefer always to pick the former.
Although I would not necessarily suggest that there was a significant gulf between us, Australia and New Zealand when we negotiated the Australia and New Zealand FTAs, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the engagement with the UK on environmental and animal welfare issues resulted in significant changes in the Australian and New Zealand domestic animal welfare and environment policies. I have no specific evidence of that, but I know full well that there were strong levels of conversation around that and, at the same time, Australia and New Zealand made significant changes in our direction in both areas. Either that was a great coincidence or it was partially supported by the fact that we were collaborating with them more effectively. This is what the CPTPP will allow us to do.
I refer back to the TAC report, which made clear our own standards for pesticides, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. That does not change: nothing changes in our standards the day after CPTPP comes into force—that is for our own sovereignty to control.
I ask that this amendment is withdrawn, but clearly I am here to discuss in detail how we can reassure noble Lords that the principles around the need to report on the effectiveness and concomitant effects of the FTA are properly established, as well as other key points around derogation and key values issues, which should be properly controlled and contained.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful and interesting reply. My understanding is that Ministers are always advised to read Hansard: that is when they find out, the next day, what they should have said at the Dispatch Box and what officials have made sure is in print. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is absolutely right: nothing in the Companion required noble Lords to say that they met the President of Korea, but I guess it sounds good.
I thank all noble Lords who took part. At the start of his contribution, the Minister said that he did not see the value of the statutory reporting in many respects. I noted that he subsequently quoted from a statutory report and said that there was great value in it. Given that the TAC was the result of amendments that Parliament asked of the Government, I will take the second part of what he said as the basis of the ministerial response—there is great value in that statutory report. But, as my noble friend Lord Foster said at Second Reading at col. 700, it would have been helpful to have had that report in advance of the start of the Second Reading. Nevertheless, we will study that report now that it has been released.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, was right to make reference to the growing economies within this area. However, if we had the data on the growth of the CPTPP economies and stripped out their reliance on the growth of the Chinese economy, I wonder what those growth figures would look like vis-à-vis those in Europe. I suspect that they would be rather similar. It is hard to disaggregate the growth of the Asia-Pacific economy from that of the Chinese economy. I note that UK imports from China, for example, have grown to over £40 billion, now that we have a trade deficit in goods with China. The impact of China’s growth is disproportionate with regard to them all.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
China is not a member of the CPTPP, so I absolutely do not understand the relevance of what the noble Lord said. My point was that, for the CPTPP 11—soon to be 12—the economic growth rate is twice that of the European Union.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am fully aware that China is not a member—I do not think there is any doubt about that—but surely the noble Viscount is aware that the growth levels of the Vietnam economy have been entirely, or at least very largely, dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy. Given that New Zealand has had a free trade agreement with China for more than 20 years, the growth of the Chinese economy has been a major, if not the predominant, factor in the growth of the Asia-Pacific economy, which—it is regularly cited—is the fastest-growing economy and one we need to be part of. It is the fastest growing because it has been dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy—but that is an overall debate.
On the CPTPP members, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right: with some of them, such as Australia, we are still awaiting the police of the GIs—the European Union, for us—to make an agreement with it. We are still in that situation. My noble friend Lord Foster raised that where businesses have an opportunity to choose between two systems, for some businesses that is a burden because of the complexities associated with that and therefore clarity on advice about the preferential way of utilising this is important. The Minister responded very fairly.
I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. I know that he will be in the Chamber for the Rwanda Statement, but in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, with regard to my drafting, there are even greater powers than the Minister or others in this Committee. They are the clerks in the Public Bill Office who tell us what is or is not in scope of the Bill, so my drafting was in order to satisfy the greatest authority, the Public Bill Office, in order to put down an amendment so we could discuss it. However, I am very happy to explore further options. This issue, connected with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we will discuss in future, is significant.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Given what the Minister said a few moments ago about Malaysia, I draw his attention to a report in today’s Daily Telegraph about Shimano, which I think is the biggest bicycle parts company in the world, which operates out of Japan. It is selling through a supplier in Malaysia products that have been made by slave labour in Nepal. That is a good illustration of the kind of problems that we will run into. Although that is not necessarily part of the treaty, it is part of our obligations under British law to ensure that such things do not enter our supply chain.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because he and I often think alike in many of these areas. He slightly pre-empted me because I was specifically mentioning Malaysia to close and to stress why it is important. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, I think it is valid to know on the record what the interest in Malaysia is since we will be debating it going forward. In 2021, in the Chamber I raised the fact that the UK had a £316 million contract with a Malaysian firm, Supermax, to supply PPE gloves through NHS Supply Chain. That company’s exports to the United States were impounded by the United States because of contraventions of ILO standards and slave labour concerns. This has still not been resolved. I raised that, and I was grateful to the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who initiated a review within the department. As I understand it, this is still being litigated. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer today, but I would be grateful if he would write to me because this is pertinent to the next stage in Committee with regard to multi-million-pound contracts through supply chains. I know that NHS Supply Chain is a distinct part of the NHS. With regard to this Malaysian firm, the United States activated powers which we did not. Now, with regard to procurement, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated, supply chains and the standards that we seek, there are genuine, valid concerns. I remind the Committee that the contract was worth £316 million. The United States had the equivalent impounded.
I know that we will come back to some of these general issues. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and grateful to the Minister, who as always is open and accessible to discuss these aspects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(3A) In section 206, after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Prior to His Majesty making an order in Council under subsection (4)(b) the Secretary of State must consult those whom they consider appropriate including representatives of United Kingdom rightsholders.”(3B) In section 208 (countries enjoying reciprocal protection), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Prior to His Majesty making an Order in Council under this section, the Secretary of State must consult those whom they consider appropriate including representatives of United Kingdom rightsholders.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require consultation to take place regarding reciprocal protection for United Kingdom performers in a qualifying country before is it designated as such.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we come now to the question of performers’ rights. I will not dwell at length on the purposes of Clause 5 but merely focus on the processes that it puts in place in relation to the definition of a qualifying country. There is a central issue here about the availability of the protection of rights holders and performers’ rights in the United Kingdom being part of a reciprocal process for the protection of UK performers in other countries. I am just sweeping the ground ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who may explain a bit more—or he may not, it is up to him.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Can the noble Lord clarify that he would always want that done under the affirmative procedure so that there could be a debate in the House on secondary legislation? I agree with him on the principle that we do not want bits and pieces of primary legislation, but there needs to be some ability to discuss secondary legislation, where appropriate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Some of them are under negative procedures. It is a judgment, not least in this House as our Delegated Powers Committee will advise us on what judgments to make. I would not endorse a blanket affirmative procedure; it must be based on the relative significance of the decisions to be made. Just because something is laid under the negative procedure does not mean that it cannot be prayed against or objected to, but that must rest with the committee.
There is nothing in the current legislation requiring any consultation with the representatives of rights holders in this country before the definition of a qualifying country is extended. I think it would be right for that to be the case; I suspect the representatives of rights holders would welcome it. In giving the Government this wider power, this is a good moment to add this carefully constructed consultation requirement before they bring an order forward. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggests that I should go into great detail explaining the whole issue of performers’ rights. I will disappoint him and other Members of the Committee because I am sure that those with an interest in it know that, basically, it is about performers and, in some cases, record label owners and so on receiving appropriate payment for their performances that take place in another country. It seems absolute common sense that if we do a deal with country X, we arrange it so that if our performers perform there we get payment and vice versa. Reciprocity seems pretty fundamental.
I have produced an amendment which says that in this legislation we ought simply to say that the reciprocal arrangements are with CPTPP member countries. Having raised real concerns about our failure during negotiations to make any progress on a number of intellectual property issues or to provide some of the support that our creative industries were seeking, I nevertheless welcome that this is part of the treaty. However, the question remains whether what I am seeking—a simple reciprocity agreement—is happening. The truth is that it is not.
I am enormously grateful to the Minister, who, after I raised these issues in basic terms as I have just done, wrote to me to explain the situation. I hope he will not mind but, to save him repeating it in his speech, I will read a little of what he wrote to me:
“The changes the Bill makes are necessary for the UK to accede to CPTPP and will expand the basis on which foreign performers can qualify for rights in UK law. In addition to the Bill, the Government will be making accompanying secondary legislation under existing powers”
and various other things to make sure that it all happens. That is fine, but he went on:
“The changes in the Bill will apply not only to performers from CPTPP countries but also those with a connection to other countries that are party to relevant treaties relating to performers’ rights to which the UK is also party. This is necessary to comply with the UK’s national treatment and most favoured nation obligations in those treaties”.
He is saying that if we do something with CPTPP countries, we would have to take into account our other treaty obligations and the impact it would have elsewhere. He adds:
“Beyond these changes, however, the UK has some flexibility under its international obligations around how it provides certain rights to foreign nationals, in particular the right of performers to receive equitable remuneration (i.e. a share of the royalties) when their performances are broadcast or played in public”.
In other words, what we have in the legislation at the moment, as I understand it, are changes that mean that we take account of what is going to happen in relation to reciprocal arrangements with CPTPP member countries as well as a stack of other changes that will take place, affecting our relationship with other countries, with some possible variation in how we deal with them. I absolutely understand that it would make life very easy for the Government to sweep these things up all at once, but it leaves us totally in the dark on exactly who we are dealing with and what the implications are, particularly for the music industry. The music industry is extremely concerned about this. It has told me that it has had discussions with the Minister and officials, that it got the information about all this at very short notice, and that it was unable to make any progress with getting the Minister to see things differently.
Its argument, and that which I would make—it is exactly the same as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—is as follows. If consequential changes are necessary in relation to countries beyond those that are members of the CPTPP, there is plenty of time between now and accession—we debated this earlier and all accept it is nine months away or possibly more—for the IPO to consult on the other issues referred to in the Minister’s letter and for us then to have an opportunity to debate their implications before they are brought in. The legislative arrangements to do that are very clear.
I am deeply concerned that these proposals are coming from the IPO, which in many respects does very good work but sometimes runs ahead of things, as it did with its proposals for text and data mining, for example. They came as a huge shock, were massively opposed and were eventually withdrawn and have not gone ahead—I am grateful to the Government for doing that. I do not want a repetition of that, so I hope it is possible for the Minister to accept an amendment that says, “For the time being, let’s concentrate on reciprocal arrangements with CPTPP member countries but, separately, have consultation on all the other things that the Minister wants to achieve so we can have an opportunity after the consultation to know what the impact will be, and then we can make a decision”.
I want to see that information before I decide whether those changes are right. The Minister may already have seen some information, because the one bit of his letter that I did not read out suggests that the department has already come to a conclusion. It states, at the end:
“As such, we expect the direct impacts of the measures … on UK parties to be small”.
I do not know whether that is true. I do not know what the implications are—nor, I think, do other Members of the Committee. The Minister may have a response that reassures me that we can go ahead in the way that the Government propose, but, given the lack of consultation we have had to date on those other issues, it would be helpful to proceed in the ways that either I or the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have proposed—both achieve the same end.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 10 in this group. It is a short, probing amendment, and I have a few questions on it for the Minister. Again, it touches on performers’ rights. Clause 5(5) refers to
“an act done … before the commencement date”.
It is specifically about acts that have taken place in the past. My questions for the Minister are detailed, so I am more than happy for him to write to me, because I do not think this will make it through to Report.
Are there any practical impacts on the performers, and, if so, what are they? Does this date back indefinitely or is there a timeframe or time limit for when the performance act took place? Finally, is there anything that performers need to do to protect themselves with the CPTPP being put in place, or any guidance on it? Again, I am happy to support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Foster, but I am seeking some clarification about performers’ historic acts.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I again thank noble Lords for their input. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to my declaration of interests and asked about my interests in Malaysia. I do not have any interests in Malaysia, but I have had interests there, which serve to highlight the points I tried to make about trade. My interests are very clearly listed on the Lords’ register. I have small shares in fund management businesses but, as I said, I do not believe there is any conflict relating to this debate. I am always very cautious in that area, so I like to make everything as transparent as possible. I apologise for not making my declarations at the beginning of the debate.
I will now cover the important points. It is important to reaffirm that, as I committed to at Second Reading, the Intellectual Property Office will undergo a full consultation and report early next year on the effects these changes will have on artists and the industry itself in the United Kingdom.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am sorry, but although it will report early next year, that will be after we have concluded all our deliberations on the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
That is true of the House of Lords process, but I assume that, by then, the Bill will be in the other place, so there will be an opportunity to reference the consultation. My point is that the consultation will not have an effect on the treaty in the sense that we are able to take ameliorative action as a nation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this, but it is not necessary to make amendments to the CPTPP Bill. We want to take time to decide the best course of action relating to how artists are compensated for their works being broadcast on broadcast media.
I am very comfortable with the principles around the consultation process, and I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that I have taken a significant personal interest in ensuring that we get into this debate with all the details that it presents. It is not necessarily as straightforward as it may appear. I admit to coming to this at First Reading and thinking, “This seems an extremely reasonable affair; shouldn’t all artists receive 50% of their broadcast rights?” Further investigation shows that the situation is much more complicated, with different artists having different concepts of rights, particularly in America, which has the largest market in relation to this, and certain revenues being able to be captured and retained in the UK, rather than repatriated, and so on. A very relevant point was raised to do with reciprocity.
If I may, I will explain to noble Lords, who know more about these subjects than I do, that joining CPTPP fundamentally changes an important principle in how we assess artists’ rights. The copyright Act extends rights to performers who are nationals of or who give a performance in a “qualifying country”, the principle being that you will qualify for the protections if you are a British citizen or if you perform—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, regularly does—your musical extravaganzas in the United Kingdom or in countries that are specifically linked via the Rome convention, for example. The secondary legislation to the CPTPP will change this. It requires that we introduce a new basis of qualification which is linked to where the music is first published. To qualify, you do not have to be either a citizen of a CPTPP country or doing the performance in a CPTPP country, so long as it is first published there. There are grace periods around that too.
It is not as simple as saying that artists’ remuneration and royalty payments are extended to everyone in the world, because that is not the case. For example, a US citizen giving an original performance in the US and registering it there would not qualify if it was then broadcast on UK media. It is important to understand that there are some nuances. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, if he has a technical point.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I was not going to intervene, although I was tempted. The Minister is 100% right that this is incredibly complicated. There is the issue of a UK session musician who performs on an American record that is then first performed elsewhere. The complications are enormous. The problem is that the proposed changes also have enormous potential implications, none of which we have had the opportunity to debate or fully understand the impact of on the UK music industry, which is confused about this. All I am asking the Minister to do is accept that there is something incredibly complicated, but it can and should be dealt with separately.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding of the complexity of this. I hope I have been able to explain to noble Lords the different principles in what we currently look to in our copyright Act and what we are signing up to in the CPTPP. It is certainly navigable. Regardless of accession to the CPTPP, it is already complicated, and there are specific agencies to make sure that these royalties are properly collected and stored.
I am reluctant to accept these amendments today and ask noble Lords who have proposed them to withdraw them, but I am very comfortable with having further discussions. It would be helpful for us to have a good discussion with the IPO so that people feel comfortable that the consultation is going in the right direction and that the right levels of input are being prescribed. The tertiary changes that we may wish to make to protect our music industry and artists would not necessarily be linked to this trade Bill, but they are important.
I am glad that I have managed to highlight and explain the new approach on who is eligible for these resale rights, because I think in the first instance it was assumed that everyone would be. That is not the case. It is important to differentiate that. We are signing up to a new approach in the CPTPP and this clearly forms part of our treaty obligations. It is very relevant that we debate that in some depth.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised a very good point in his amendment. I hope I can reassure him that this is not retrospective, but it would make sense for performances undertaken before the date to qualify. However, you would not be paid royalties for qualifying performances that were broadcast before the date. Otherwise, everyone would claim for past performances over the 70 years that IP goes back to—that would be totally impractical and inappropriate and is not what we are suggesting at all. Our legal advice is clear that the cut-off date is the day on which this comes into force. Anything following that point would qualify. Historic performances are clearly part of the IP record, but you would not receive royalties for anything from before that point. I hope that reassures noble Lords.
I hope I have covered the points raised. I am very grateful for noble Lords’ input on this important, sensitive and complex area. As is often the case in dealing with noble Lords in this Room, we are talking not about party-political or even political issues but issues of detail that have great ramifications. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is keen to intervene as I may not have covered his points. The order of this is that the first statutory instrument gives the Secretary of State the power to make the changes, after which there is the consultation, and then the second instrument makes the changes. I hope that helps answer his initial point on the order of activity.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend has referred very well to all the issues relating to the definition of a qualifying performance, but my amendment relates narrowly and specifically not to subsection (2) but to subsection (3). It concerns the question of a qualifying country not simply in relation to the CPTPP and takes a power to make Orders in Council to extend the definition of “qualifying country” in future—not just to CPTPP countries but, potentially, beyond. My noble friend says that the Secretary of State can publish a draft and then consult on it. They can do that, but there is nothing in the legislation to say that they should. I would like to be sure. If my noble friend is saying that such a consultation must take place, I am not sure where it is clear that it must.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
We have not legislated for a consultation—there is no mention of that in the Bill—but we made such an undertaking at Second Reading. It is part of the process and we are very aware of the need to consult.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Is that an undertaking always to consult before making an order under Sections 206 or 208 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
No, I am sorry—it is not an undertaking to consult on the artist performance rights every time changes may be made to the countries that become applicable.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Just to be clear, what my noble friend has said may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—is that “Bath” with a short or a long “a”?
Lord Lansley (Con)
Try to read that one in Hansard. However, my noble friend has not given me the assurance that I am looking for in the changes to the definition of a qualifying country.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am very happy to have conversations about this. Clearly, these FTAs make it difficult, if we are to comply with them, to have various and significant amendments to them. However, I am reassured by my officials that, in making significant changes to “qualifying countries”, we would make sure that there was an appropriate level of consultation. I am very sensitive about making great promises from the Dispatch Box because I always find myself getting into trouble later, but I hope that—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, would like me to make off-the-cuff commitments on behalf of the Government. It would be only logical to assume that there would be a degree of consultation in the same way that we are effecting one in this instance but, since I cannot give a firm commitment, I am very comfortable to come back to my noble friend between now and Report.
Lord Lansley (Con)
That reassurance affords me the opportunity to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Universities: Nuclear Energy Sector Skills
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for increasing investment in universities to provide more opportunities for young people to acquire the skills needed to expand electricity generating capacity in the nuclear energy sector, including nuclear fusion technology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the significant demand for skills in the nuclear sector, which are crucial to reaching net zero. We have allocated more than half of the £1.5 billion strategic priorities grant for 2023-24 to support the teaching of high-cost subjects such as science, engineering and technology, all of which can lead to careers in nuclear energy. We are also collaborating with the nuclear skills taskforce, which is devising a plan to expand and enhance the nuclear talent pool.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the nuclear skills taskforce estimates a need for 180,000 skilled jobs to deliver 24 gigawatts of nuclear energy and warns that a shortfall of relevant skills could thwart the Government’s target. Is the Minister aware of the current rapid growth in demand for skilled graduates for both the fission and fusion sectors, and that we are way short of matching supply to demand? Will the Government support the proposal from Bangor University, in partnership with the National Nuclear Laboratory, for the establishment of a training reactor, which could help to train engineers and scientists to operate in nuclear facilities in order to produce nuclear medicines and research nuclear materials and components?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am aware, as are the Government more broadly, of the shortages and pressures that the noble Lord rightly refers to; he understands that those are global pressures as well as domestic ones. I will write to him on the specific project in Bangor, if I may. More broadly, the Government are absolutely committed to trying to build this workforce and provide skills; obviously, examples such as those he gave sound important in that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will doubtless be aware of the many good examples of apprenticeship schemes serving both the fusion and fission industries, such as the UKAEA’s Oxfordshire Advanced Skills centre, Urenco at Capenhurst, Rolls-Royce in Derby and the Nuclear AMRC in Rotherham. Urenco also sponsors departments at Manchester University and plans to do so at Bangor University. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly said, there is a worldwide skills shortage, with 180,000 job shortages predicted in the UK alone. All these schemes together will not touch the sides in meeting the industry’s requirements. What more can the Government do to encourage young people and teachers to gain the skills necessary to embark on highly rewarding careers in this most exciting of industries?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. I share her appreciation for the organisations that she named. We are investing £50 million over the next two years to pilot ways in which to increase the number of apprenticeships in engineering and other key growth sectors, as well as to address barriers to entry into these professions. We will set out more detail on that in the new year, which will, I hope, go some way to addressing her concerns.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
There is plenty of time for everybody, if we show the normal courtesies and go round the Chamber.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that a memorandum of understanding has been signed with the United Arab Emirates to provide it with nuclear technology; if we do not provide it with that technology, the Russians most certainly will. The technology will be of no use unless there are trained personnel to mediate it. Do we intend to train those UAE personnel? If so, where and when should the training begin?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Viscount will have to forgive me; I am not familiar with the details on that, but I would be happy to write to him.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, to develop nuclear technology—including fusion technology—we need many more PhD students working in postgraduate degrees, as well as more funding for those PhDs? Furthermore, as we are now not going to join Euratom and we do not have a prototype fusion reactor, what plans do the Government have to rejoin the ITER—International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—programme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that we need more PhDs, but we need skills at every level. That is where the Government’s strategy is focusing, starting in schools and building through T-levels, then to high-quality advanced levels up to PhD. The Government are very open to exploring international co-operation in this area—less on the research side, but the AUKUS agreement was a sign of that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the UK is not on track to meet its greenhouse gas emission commitments made at COP 26 only two years ago? The climate emergency is now, and it is already probably too late to keep our planet below 2 degrees, let alone 1.5 degrees, of climate change. If nuclear fusion technology is achieved, it will not arrive in time to save us. Should our immediate focus not be on renewable energy skills that can make a fundamental difference to net zero immediately?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely do not accept that the UK Government are not on track to meet their climate targets. We are ahead of every other major nation, as the noble Earl knows. We are also doing a lot of work in relation to green skills. Again, we will publish a green jobs plan in the first half of 2024, but we have very attractive green skills offers across every level, from skills boot camps up to the highest possible qualifications.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, when I questioned the Minister on skills on 27 November, she replied that the Government had announced £200 million of funding for local skills innovation funds. Are the Government aware of any examples of these local funds being available or currently used in the nuclear energy sector?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It depends what the noble Baroness means by the nuclear energy sector. There are some big and strategic employers, and we can see regionally—in places such as Cumbria, unsurprisingly, and Bridgwater—that there is a concentration of activity, particularly in higher education and apprenticeships. If we think more broadly of the supply chain for nuclear, I can be very confident that it is included.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, are not the technical nuclear skills that we need particularly related to smaller and medium-sized nuclear modules and reactors, of which many other countries are now ordering considerable numbers? We seem to be stuck in yet another competition while the order books are getting full. Is this not, in fact, the key to an all-electric future in 2050, without which we will not succeed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government feel that we have made major commitments in this area. We committed up to £385 million to an advanced nuclear fund to provide funding for small modular reactor design and to progress plans for demonstration examples by the early 2030s at the latest.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. The Midlands region faces particular challenges in this area, with the ramp-up in AUKUS in the near term, which the Minister referred to, and future programmes such as the STEP fusion reactor at West Burton. How do the Government plan to support nuclear skills programmes in the Midlands, and will the Minister agree to meet with me and wider stakeholders to discuss how we can work together in this area?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I would be delighted to meet with him and, I hope, include the Skills Minister. I am sure we would learn very much from the noble Lord’s expertise in this area. In response to his first question, I can say that the Government are working really closely with the nuclear sector through the nuclear skills taskforce, which includes representation from Rolls-Royce. The whole aim of the taskforce is to support the sector to develop a plan to build the pipeline that we so badly need. It is obviously excellent to see the development of the Nuclear Skills Academy in Derby, which is training apprentices from levels 3 to 6. The noble Lord will also be aware of all the Institutes of Technology bringing together further education, higher education and employers across the Midlands.
Universal Credit
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the proposal from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust for an ‘Essentials Guarantee’ in Universal Credit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the department has taken note of the report and recommendations. We are aware of the continuing pressures people on lower incomes face. We will spend £276 billion through the welfare system in 2023-24 in Great Britain. From April 2024, benefits will increase by 6.7% and the national living wage will increase by 9.8% to £11.44. We are investing £1.2 billion in restoring local housing allowance rates, which ensure that 1.6 million low-income private renters gain, on average, £800 per year.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that, of the 6.2 million people on universal credit, 38% are in full-time work. Has he read the latest report from Barnardo’s on bed poverty, published only in September? The research showed that, due to the lack of an essentials guarantee, 900,000 children share a bed or sleep on the floor. Can he imagine the anxiety and tiredness that this creates? There is a lack of an essentials guarantee, which could be monitored by an independent body. It is not just a question of upping the benefits; there ought to be some serious effort put into this.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, absolutely. The noble Lord’s points chime with what I said earlier about the fact that we understand the pressures that some people are experiencing. The Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable by providing one of the largest support packages in Europe. Taken together, the Government are providing total support of £104 billion from 2022 to 2025 to help households. I am aware of the Barnardo’s report. What we are doing for the household support fund includes funding to enable local authorities to help people with the cost of essentials in houses, including food, energy and furniture.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend had the opportunity to read the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on universal credit, which pointed out the injustice of people who moved on to universal credit and who received overpayments under the previous system, through no fault of their own, having their universal credit reduced? Surely at a time of such pressures, the Treasury should write off the sum and acknowledge it was a mistake made by government, for which people who are under very stressed circumstances should not be paying?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take note of the point raised by my noble friend. I am not able to comment directly on that, but I will take his points back to the Treasury.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister give due consideration, along with his ministerial colleagues in government, for the need to reform the social security system to ensure that poverty, particularly food poverty and child poverty, is put at the centre of any new policy, to ensure that there is an elimination over the next number of years?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, the noble Baroness is right that poverty is incredibly important. Absolute poverty is the Government’s preferred measure, as the poverty line is fixed in real terms. There is some debate over how one defines poverty; we are very alert to that, particularly in the field of child poverty. We take it very seriously, and although there is not time to go through all the measures we are taking, it is very important that as many children as possible—all children—are taken out of poverty.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, thinking of the effects of poverty, the Mental Health Foundation has recommended that all front-line workers, including those who work in essential services and government, should be given training and support to know how to respond effectively to the mental health effects of financial stress and strain. Will the Minister agree that this training and support is both vital and necessary?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Across government, we are putting a lot of work into tackling mental health, particularly post pandemic. We have a sustainable long-term approach to tackling poverty and, as I said earlier, supporting people on lower incomes. Perhaps I can say to the right reverend Prelate that, in 2021-22, there were 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs than in 2009-10, including 400,000 fewer children.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, one group ignored by the Government in the Autumn Statement is unpaid carers. The Chancellor’s speech in the other place failed to mention the estimated 10.6 million people providing care, while the statement document itself mentions them only in relation to technical changes. In recent research by Carers UK, 60% of all carers said that they were worried about the impact of caring on their finances, while over a third of carers receiving carer’s allowance say they are struggling to afford the cost of food. Will the Minister look at reforming the rate of carer’s allowance and taking further steps to prevent eligibility restrictions acting as a barrier to employment?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, the noble Lord raised an important point about carers, who play a vital role in our country. We are very alert to this; I will certainly take the point he raised back to the Treasury, but I am unable to comment on whether we can or cannot do it. In terms of carers, we have strong evidence that some carers would also like to take on some work if it is appropriate, so there is much work going on with job coaches, to encourage them to speak to carers to see whether it is possible for them to combine work as well as their caring responsibilities, if it is appropriate.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are concerned about poverty, and he describes the things the Government have done, but we have to look at the results, because I am afraid that the Government do not get to mark their own homework. If the Minister does not like the Barnardo’s study cited by my noble friend, does he like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finding that last year a million children experienced destitution? What about UNICEF, which found recently that the world’s worst rise in child poverty between 2012 and 2019 was in the UK—the worst of the 39 richest countries in the world? Is the Minister proud of that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am certainly not proud of that, but, as I say, there are a number of reports that have come out, and some that have come out recently. I can only repeat again that we are aware of the pressures involved; some families find it difficult even with where they can find the next meal. We are very aware of and alert to that; I think the noble Baroness will know that we are particularly busy in looking at what more can be done to help those in absolute poverty. She will know from the Autumn Statement the measures we have taken forward, and I can only repeat again that we are very alert to this.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, food inflation remains stubbornly high, at slightly over 10%, although thankfully it is 9 percentage points down from its peak in March this year. On this vital household metric, there is significant risk that prices will stay unaffordably high. What measures will the Government take to encourage the price of essential food items to come down from current levels in retail, local shops and supermarkets?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend raises another pressure, which we are also aware of. First, tackling inflation is the Government’s number one priority, and that is coming down. The Government monitor consumer food prices using the consumer prices index, as my noble friend will know, and in October 2023 CPI food price inflation reported by the ONS was 10.1%, down from 12.1% in September 2023. I reassure him that, through regular engagement, Defra will continue to work with food retailers and producers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability of affordable food.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
As the Minister has just said, and the House agrees, the price of food is very high. Could the Minister explain to the House—or maybe help me—why we have a very good system called Healthy Start, which provides a supplementary bit of money to pregnant mums and kids under four, yet 40% of the people who are eligible for this are not registered, because the system is really complicated? NGOs such as the one I chair, Feeding Britain, have been campaigning for a long time for automatic registration. The money is there; it is not drastically expensive. Could the Minister agree to look into this very simple process that would help a lot of people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, I will certainly take that point back. The Healthy Start scheme is an important point of the Government’s programme. Through healthy food schemes, the Government provide a nutritional safety net to those families who need it most. In terms of the uptake, the latest Healthy Start uptake figures were published, as the noble Baroness may be aware, on 31 October. The uptake for the NHS Healthy Start scheme was 70%.
Classical Music
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to take steps to improve support for classical music, particularly for orchestras and opera companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, opera, orchestras and classical music enrich our lives. Through its investment programme, Arts Council England is spending almost £60 million per year on classical music and opera. More opera organisations are being funded than previously, and support for orchestral organisations has increased in both number and value, with nearly two dozen sharing over £21 million a year. We have also extended the higher rate of cultural tax reliefs, including orchestra tax relief.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, many of us will no doubt have had recent listening experiences which give us hope that there is a future for classical music in this country. But will the Minister accept that this excellence does not describe the wider narrative of declining educational opportunities and funding cuts, which have led inevitably to a necessarily costlier art form being under considerable threat wherever it is located? Among numerous concerns, can a way can be found to retain orchestra tax relief claims on EEA expenditure as, on top of Brexit, this may otherwise prove disastrous for touring in Europe?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Since it was introduced in 2016, £75 million has been paid out through orchestra tax relief. We have extended it at the headline rates for another two years and are grateful to the Association of British Orchestras and many others who have joined the consultation since that was announced in the Budget. Since our departure from the EU, we are of course bringing our tax reliefs in line with World Trade Organization rules. I am grateful for the collaboration we have had. We have made changes on connected party transactions and the going concern rule, and we are keen to continue discussion with orchestras to ensure that they know that only 10% of orchestral output needs to be produced in this country; they will still be able to tour around the world, so that people overseas as well as here may enjoy their brilliant work.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will reflect, along with the Arts Council, on the situation in the north of England. With the move of English National Opera to Manchester, the Hallé Orchestra being in Manchester and the Liverpool Philharmonic patently being in Liverpool, east of the Pennines is somewhat bereft of a critical mass, which can be absolutely crucial in encouraging young people to come forward into this critical cultural area. Perhaps the Minister will talk to the Arts Council about this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, I have had the pleasure of hearing both the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic and the Hallé perform. Of course, as the noble Lord may know, English National Opera has this week announced its intention to base itself in Greater Manchester, as well as continuing its season at the London Coliseum. It is doing so partly because of the great strength of classical music across the north-west of England. The Arts Council, of course, is spending its money more equitably across the country. More organisations are being funded than ever before in more parts of the country, and we want to see people wherever they live benefiting from world-class cultural and artistic output.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that orchestras need a strong pipeline of talent. This will be achieved only when high-quality music education is available for all across all the country, and particularly those with potential. The national plan for music education, which I chaired, will help—when it is finally implemented. Many schools and music teachers are already doing remarkable work, but they would certainly welcome some encouragement. When can we expect to see senior members of government cheering our brilliant orchestras, choirs and young musicians from the front rows of our concert halls, and in schools?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am delighted to tell my noble friend that last night, while some of us were voting on four regret amendments, our right honourable friend the Chancellor was at the Royal Festival Hall enjoying the London Philharmonic Orchestra performing Beethoven’s “Emperor” Concerto and Rimsky-Korsakov’s “Scheherazade”, which he tells me was a fantastic production. So, I hope that my noble friend will be glad to hear that members of His Majesty’s Government do go and enjoy the output of our world-class orchestras. I commend her for the work she did on the national plan for music education, which will ensure that more people from this country are able to forge careers and continue producing that wonderful output which makes us all very proud.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, anyone who has heard the annual performance of “Messiah” by the Halifax Choral Society, with the Black Dyke Mills Band and orchestra, will know that we are not entirely without some high-quality music in Yorkshire. The classical music industry is a net surplus invisible exporter for this country, and it is absolutely vital that we keep supporting it. I declare an interest as a former chair of Voces8, which spends quite a lot of time touring on the continent and in North America. Are the Government now within sight of getting rid of these bilateral arrangements, which do not really provide for orchestras and others to do proper tours of the continent—all the way from school orchestras such as the London Schools Symphony Orchestra, which is superb, to classical orchestras as such?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are tripling funding for the Music Export Growth Scheme to more than £3 million over the next two years, which will enable more touring artists to break into new international markets. We are also expanding our Export Support Service to further help creative exporters, including touring musicians. We want our musicians to tour the world so that their work can be enjoyed overseas, just as it is here in the UK—including in Yorkshire.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
May I ask the Minister to comment at a more grass-roots level? In the last few months, we have lost the Dartington summer festival, which is educational as well; we have lost Oxford Brookes University teaching music; and we have lost a lot of the Cheltenham Festivals’ work. I declare my interest as an ex-director of the Cheltenham international festival of music. I was there for 10 years and commissioned works—more than 100—as my successors continue to do. Not only are we losing this commissioning opportunity, which is so important for young composers, but local audiences in places that identify as being under-resourced in music are losing out.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
On a recent visit to Devon, I had the opportunity to meet the new chief executive of Dartington Trust. The noble Lord is right to point to the brilliant work done by Cheltenham Festivals in his time and subsequently. Arts Council England has maintained its level of funding for Cheltenham Festivals at £217,000 per year, but I would be very happy to meet people from Cheltenham Festivals as well as others.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that opera and classical music still suffer from a quite widespread perception that they are not for anything other than a very small audience. This makes fundraising extremely difficult for small organisations such as OperaUpClose, with which I declare a personal connection, which are trying to take high-quality music and opera into communities where they are not generally available and to engage them in that work. By the way, they are also commissioning young composers. Can the Government encourage a better fundraising environment for those companies, particularly by encouraging, for example, match-funding schemes such as the Big Give, which closed this week?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I congratulate OperaUpClose, which is one of the new operatic organisations that have joined the Arts Council national portfolio. I met another, Pegasus Opera, which is doing great work as well in encouraging new audiences and new compositions so that opera can continue to be a rich art form that people of all backgrounds get to enjoy. The noble Baroness is right that private philanthropy as well as public subsidy plays an important part. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have had meetings with arts organisations and funding bodies to look at ways in which we might be able to create further incentives for giving. But I hope that people will be able to leverage their part in the national portfolio through the Arts Council—not just to spend the public subsidy that is given but also to be part of that network, which they now are.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, leaving aside the extreme concern that the Chancellor is favouring EU composers over British composers—I hope that nobody tells the Prime Minister that—may I ask my noble friend what he is doing to increase diversity in classical music? Will he join me in congratulating the Chineke! Orchestra on its success and all it has done to increase diversity in our orchestras, and perhaps illuminate us regarding the discussions he has had with the Arts Council to continue this impressive progress?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Arts Council did a very valuable study on diversity in classical music—diversity in every form. As I say, companies such as Pegasus Opera are doing important work in bringing people from diverse backgrounds into art forms that we can all enjoy, as are the Chineke! Orchestra and many others. Through its new national portfolio, the Arts Council is investing in more companies and organisations in more parts of the country than ever before, including those led by a more diverse range of people.
Ministry of Defence: Equipment Plan
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Audit Office’s value for money analysis of the Ministry of Defence’s Equipment Plan 2023 to 2033, published on 4 December.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, the National Audit Office’s report on the equipment plan states that it does not consider the value for money of the MoD’s equipment expenditure or of the specific projects mentioned; nor does it comment on the policy choices that the department makes to develop a plan that meets its future needs. While the National Audit Office report recognises the significant impact that global headwinds and high inflation have had on UK defence, it does not and could not accurately reflect the current or future state of the Armed Forces equipment plan, given that it pre-dates the publication of the defence Command Paper refresh.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the NAO report is deeply disturbing at a time when we have war in Europe, conflict in the Middle East and growing threats globally. As we have just heard from the Minister, the MoD just dismisses it as a dated snapshot that does not reflect reality. The NAO says that the plan is unaffordable and that forecast costs exceed the available budget by £16.9 billion. It says that the MoD estimates that the funding gap could range between £7.6 billion and £29.8 billion. How is that just a dated snapshot?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence certainly does not consider the report in such a way. Where the Ministry of Defence is coming from is that our Armed Forces are operating in an increasingly contested and dangerous world, and we are working hard to deliver what our servicepeople need to keep the United Kingdom safe. We are in a period of great change, which is why the equipment plan budget has increased to £288.6 billion over the next decade. It is about the next decade—10 years forward.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the most interesting forecasts in the NAO report is not a figure but a word: “Unknown”. It is the forecast of the equipment plan cost if it were to reflect all the capabilities outlined in the 2023 integrated review and defence Command Paper refresh. The gap between resource and ambition is serious and leaves us exposed in an increasingly dangerous world. When are the Government going to get a grip on it?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I do not buy that the plan is unfundable and unworkable. There is significant flexibility within the figures and large contingencies to allow the flexibility of the correct platforms to be developed over the period of time to meet the defence needs for the state.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is wrong to look at the defence equipment plan as some kind of rigid, unchangeable proposition, for the very reason he has just indicated? We have to have headroom, which is necessary to allow for flexibility, pursuant to the defence Command Paper refresh, but also because of emerging technologies and our constant journey with artificial intelligence. It is important for everyone to remember that inherent flexibility is actually a strength.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to answer a question from my predecessor. She is absolutely right: we are looking at a 10-year timeframe and only 25% of expenditure is committed. We have a contingency budget in there of more than £4 billion.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the equipment plan bandies around some interesting figures: the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned £16.9 billion, while I picked up £7.6 billion and £29.8 billion—obviously, precision is our watchword. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, picked up the very alarming word “Unknown” for the costs and, where they are known, they are deemed to be “unaffordable”. This is not a good projection. Can the Minister project a rather more accurate estimate of the financial cost? In particular, how does the MoD intend to meet the acute skills shortage gap? Without the skills, our brave military personnel are going to be lost.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. In fact, there is considerable investment in skills—particularly in the areas of nuclear and shipbuilding—within these figures, all of which are costed. She is absolutely right that the skills gap that the industry is facing is entirely being funded and down to government.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the most important question arising from this report, raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I wish to make a couple of points to the Minister and ask him a question. First, this report, like all NAO reports, was agreed by the department.
Secondly, the report specifically says that the equipment plan
“does not reflect all the cost pressures to develop new and support existing capabilities set out in the 2021 Integrated Review”,
which was updated in March this year. I recollect that the then Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, said that the extra £5 billion was welcome but that £11 billion was needed.
Thirdly, the report highlights the fact that the individual services have differing approaches to preparing the forecast in the plan. The Navy and the Royal Air Force include predicted costs for the capabilities that the Government expect from them while the Army includes only what it can afford. These issues need immediate attention, do they not? They should be attended to immediately.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. One of the key points about the NAO report is that it does not reflect the aspiration to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP when economic and fiscal conditions allow. If one puts that back in, it obviously completely changes the finances.
On the question of consistency, I am in entire agreement. I am very new in this role. I have looked at budgets for the last 40 years and I have never seen a budget that resembles anything like this one, and that is not just the absolute figures. The way in which it is constructed means that it is very difficult to get to exactly the way in which the money moves around. That is something that I commit to the House that I will learn and then lose not much more sleep over.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that none of the cost of the equipment provided to the Government of Ukraine has been or will be met from the defence budget, and that that will include any restocking of war stocks that have been gifted to Ukraine?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. I can confirm that all equipment gifted to Ukraine is well without these figures. Your Lordships will know that, as well as the £5 billion that was granted by the Chancellor, an additional nearly £0.5 billion was given to restock the stockpiles that are required.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I wish the Minister all the best in his new appointment. Further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, the NAO report refers to supply line risks and constraints caused by skills gaps, plus the shortage of key components. Much of that is the consequence of the war in Ukraine. We must continue the support for that war but, further to the noble Baroness’s question, what more can the Minister and the department do to address the skills gap by working with key contractors and suppliers, such as BAE?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes two very good points. One is about the extremely complicated supply chain that the defence industry has to follow and the extreme pressures that inflationary costs bring to bear on that. It is not just headline inflation; the inflationary costs go from raw materials right through to the completed product. It is extraordinary and very varied. The question of the skills gap is at the heart of one of my right honourable friend’s tasks in the other place in ensuring that British industry, particularly organisations such as BAE Systems, is sufficiently available to get the skills.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the report is extremely worrying. The Government seem to have the ability to talk as if these things are not crucial. There is no doubt that we need more money spent on defence. I understand that we are looking at 2.5% when the situation allows. Yes, we are very short of money, but sometimes, if things are so dangerous and worrying, you have to adjust your priorities.
We seem to be lulling ourselves into a false sense of security. If the Government really think that our military is being sufficiently funded and all things are rosy, I am very worried. If that is just what they are saying to put a good face on it here, fine, but I have a horrible feeling that they believe things really are rosy. I ask the Minister to look at the real impact of this NAO report, because there is no doubt that things we have been promised will not come.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Government take the report extremely seriously, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. An enormous amount of work is going on in the department to look at the changing defence requirement for the next 10 years and the impact that it is likely to have on the cost implications. Everybody is fully aware that the Government wish to get to 2.5% as a minimum and I am sure that, when fiscal conditions allow, that will be delivered.
Public Service (Integrity and Ethics) Bill [HL]
Thursday 7th December 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Service (Integrity and Ethics) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Public Service (Integrity and Ethics) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Abortion (Gestational Time Limit Reduction) Bill [HL]
Thursday 7th December 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Abortion (Gestational Time Limit Reduction) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Abortion (Gestational Time Limit Reduction) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
Schools: Safeguarding
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
That this House takes note of the importance of safeguarding children in schools.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords participating today and those—five or six, I think—who have had to scratch from the debate due to travel issues. I am especially sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, was taken ill overnight and is unfortunately unable to be with us.
The importance of safeguarding children is well established and considered vital in underpinning the operation of a safe and functioning society in the UK, so there should not really be any need for us to have a debate about its importance at all in 2023. As a country, we should be able to protect all children from harm both outside of school and, especially, within it. We have in place the protocols, mechanisms and routines. Schools should be able to facilitate children to explore ideas about themselves and the world in ways which do not harm them, but children today find themselves facing a tidal wave of troubles and challenges: poor mental health, body image issues, violent pornography and online bullying for starters. Our children are unhappier than ever. What has gone wrong?
The Government’s definition of safeguarding encompasses a holistic range of measures that must be met to ensure children are safe, healthy and able to flourish. Working Together to Safeguard Children defines safeguarding as
“protecting children from maltreatment … preventing impairment of children’s mental and physical health or development … ensuring that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care”,
and
“taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes”.
Outside of the home environment, there is nothing more formative for a child than their experience at school. Consequently, parents place profound trust in schools not just to provide their child with an education but to protect their mental and physical safety too. In turn, teachers and schools take on great responsibility—one that goes well beyond the planning, preparation and delivery of lessons, the marking of work and a focus on academic development. All of those working with children in schools fundamentally shape the environment in which they grow up and are responsible to ensure this environment is, at a minimum, not harming them.
This speech starts from the belief that teachers, parents, and carers are united in wanting the best for children, but the world has changed beyond recognition since the legislative framework for safeguarding was introduced. As well-established as safeguarding protocol is in this country, it must be able to adapt in the light of new safeguarding risks facing children today.
Safeguarding is the responsibility of everyone who comes into contact with a child and their family. It is thanks to my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone—I am delighted to see her in her place—who, as Secretary of State, introduced the Children Act in 1989, 34 years ago, during which time the world has changed beyond recognition, that we have the legislative framework for the requirements and expectations of child safeguarding in England, reinforced by subsequent legislation in 2004. Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 states that any organisation or function providing services to children is legally required to promote their welfare and to safeguard them. The Government bolstered this legislation with several statutory documents that set out safeguarding duties on schools. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills—Ofsted—highlighted in its 2017-2022 strategy:
“Even more important than ensuring young people are learning well is ensuring that they are safe”.
Ofsted expects every school to have a “culture of safeguarding” and a school should be deemed automatically inadequate if these measures are found to be ineffective. Even though this occurs in a tiny minority of schools, Ofsted considers safeguarding to be an utmost priority.
What does this mean in practice? It means several things. Schools are required to work closely and co-operatively with appropriate local authority partners in a local community to ensure no child is able to slip through the net. They are required to adopt an “it could happen here” mentality, which works from the fundamental premise that every adult has the potential to harm a child. Safeguarding does not accept that simply because someone appears harmless, they can be considered to be so. Information sharing is foundational to this; schools are not in the business of keeping secrets. A teacher should never promise confidentiality to a child, and the Government provide six information sharing principles for child practitioners, including accuracy, security and timeliness.
Another vital safeguarding measure is the importance of parental responsibility. The law is clear that no other body is to assume parental responsibility for a child unless the court intervenes. Although there are exceptions, parents are accepted to be the most emotionally, socially and financially invested in the welfare of their children. Those who have parental responsibility for a child should be empowered to make decisions about that child.
We clearly have the infrastructure designed to make sure we keep children safe, so why are Britain’s children unhappier than ever? According to the NHS, in 2017, one in nine children aged between seven and 16 had a probable mental health disorder. By 2020, that number was one in six. In 2022, one in four young people aged 17 to 19 reported mental health issues. One in eight children report being bullied online through social media platforms. Our mental health services for children and young people are in a dire state, with children and young people’s mental health services buckling under the burden of demand. Do the Government have any plans to develop and implement a strategy to tackle mental health in schools?
Ofsted reports that peer-on-peer sexual abuse in schools is on the rise. Sexual harassment is prevalent in schools, and is more prevalent by boys to girls. This is unsurprising, given the normalisation of sexual violence in online pornography and the role it is playing in shaping a child’s understanding of sex and relationships. As the Children’s Commissioner reported in January, the average age at which children are first seeing pornography is 13. Some 10% of children surveyed first saw porn age nine. As I am sure we will hear later in the debate, the impact of pornography on destroying young minds cannot be overstated. Anyone who doubts this should look on YouTube at a film called “Raised on Porn”, which explains the effect on a child’s brain of watching pornography at an age when they are unable to compute what they are seeing. Age verification, brought in with the Online Safety Act, should go some way to resolving this, but the normalisation of porn consumption among young people is nothing short of a safeguarding catastrophe—although I am not, of course, blaming schools for this.
Social media and smartphones have become an integral part of the lives of children and teenagers. This is 24/7: no longer are children likely to be kicking a football around the school field or chatting in the canteen at lunch. Instead, they are disassociated from the real world around them, plugged into an online world with limitless boundaries and unfettered access to potentially dangerous actors across the world. As psychology professor and expert Jonathan Haidt put it, “Childhood has been rewired”. His research suggests that social media is making children more fragile, angrier and more likely to take offence. This is having a particularly damaging effect on girls, yet some schools still allow children to walk around the school corridors glued to their smartphones.
If the damage is so clear, why are we not seeing this as a safeguarding issue? I welcome the Secretary of State for Education’s pledge to issue guidance cracking down on smartphone use in schools. Can my noble friend the Minister say when this guidance is likely to be published?
As well as the proliferation of poor mental health, porn and social media, many schools are adopting an ideological approach towards sex and gender, and issues around identity. This is leading to a violation of trust between parents and teachers. According to a report by Policy Exchange, 69% of schools are not reliably informing parents when a child experiences gender distress at school and 25% of children are being taught that they can be born in the wrong body. As Dr Hilary Cass has said in her interim report into services for gender-distressed children and young people,
“social transition … is not a neutral act”.
Some schools are breaking the safeguarding rules by legitimising withholding vital information from parents, promising confidentiality to children and compromising single- sex spaces—most vital for both sexes in navigating the trials and tribulations of puberty.
Ultimately, schools risk usurping the roles of parents when it comes to navigating highly sensitive cultural issues such as sex, race and gender. Schools have an obligation to remain politically impartial when teaching these issues, but we know they are not always doing this. Statutory guidance exists but many believe it needs to be stronger. Can my noble friend confirm whether this guidance is under review and likely to be updated?
I am sure we all understand the pressures on teachers, who have an enormous responsibility in discharging safeguarding duties as well as providing an academic education. The way that closing schools during the pandemic has devalued the education system in the collective consciousness of the public has resulted in a sense that school is an optional extra, with huge numbers of society’s most vulnerable severely absent from it and parents willing to take children out of school for reasons such as politics and holidays. Will my noble friend consider enabling schools and academy trusts to issue fixed penalty notices for poor attendance?
Again, I do not underestimate the pressure that teachers are under, so is my noble friend aware that teachers are being called up for jury service with no concern about the impact on both them and the children they teach? Would she consider raising with colleagues in government whether teachers could be exempt from jury service during termtime, or guidance created for the courts to ensure teachers are not taken out of schools at critical times, leaving children untaught for lengthy periods?
Like many noble Lords, I hear from parents and teachers asking, “How can we let children be children?” For my generation—I think I am still just below the average age in your Lordships’ House—that is what we were. We read Ladybird books; we learned to read from Janet and John; our crazes, or our social contagions if you like, were potty putty, gonks and hopscotch. The most edgy thing we did in the break at school was to play kiss chase. That was about as extreme as it got. Thankfully, for my children’s generation there was no social media. I am not suggesting for a moment that people of our generation, and my children’s, did not experience bullying, violence and abuse, but thankfully they escaped the online world that children, their teachers and their parents have to navigate today. Quirky children are like quirky adults; they should not be bullied or picked on for being different. Whether it is for red hair, sexual orientation or being gender non-conforming, they should be supported to be themselves as they develop from childhood to adulthood.
I know that my noble friend the Minister will share all our concerns about the well-being of our children in schools. We cannot afford to drop the ball on safeguarding, even if that means admitting that mistakes have been made. Society is constantly evolving, and issues which previously did not exist, or may have been thought harmless or negligible, should now be re-evaluated in the light of safeguarding duties. Children deserve to be children and to grow and mature in school, knowing that they are safe from harm. They are already paying the price and it must stop.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on securing it and introducing it so effectively. She started by talking about the importance of safeguarding children. Whatever else we disagree on today in this Chamber, I think we would all accept that that is vital and that we have an obligation to ensure that it is as effective as possible. I agree with the thrust of her arguments completely. I take the view she does on many of the issues facing society and schools now. In the time I have, I want to take up just one or two points.
It is important to remember that, although awful things still happen, safeguarding in schools is far better than it was when I started teaching. We know now what risks children have and the truth is that, for many children, schools are the safest places in their lives. Huge progress has been made and we ought to acknowledge that, because it is an extra burden on teachers. Theirs is a skilled job; you have to learn to do it. I was teaching during that period of having to learn to do it, and it is not easy because it is about changing your culture. By the time you get to an adult, it is quite difficult to change that. One of the ways in which that culture has been changed over the last 20 to 30 years is in having a partnership between government and schools, where society has decided what it wants to accept and Governments have passed legislation and issued guidance so that schools have a framework in which they can make decisions. Without being complacent about what still needs to be done, that is why it has improved.
I want to take up the issues where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, we have not got it right. We should not dismiss them, so I will comment on one briefly. What happens with online risks is terrible. I do not know how schools deal with them, given the tightly knit communities that they are, but at least now we have agreement in adult society that we must do as much as we can to change that and offer protection for children. We have the beginnings of a legislative framework whereby that can happen.
I want to move on to the issue of sex and gender and self-ID for children in schools. Why do we have no adult agreement for what we want for our children on that? We do not have the legislative framework or the guidance which gives that secure framework against which teachers can make their decisions. The good we have achieved has been through guidance, legislation and adults agreeing what is best for children, which is not happening on whether children and people should be able to self-identify their sex and whether schools should support them.
While we are dithering about issuing guidance and wondering what we should do on this difficult issue, teachers are picking up the pieces every day in their schools. It is not just the odd school or one school in 10: these difficult conversations are taking place in every school. Children are growing up asking themselves these questions and teachers are trying to discharge their responsibility to help them without a framework to guide them. They are dealing with issues such as whether schools should have single-sex spaces in changing rooms, when a male pupil identifies as a girl and wants to access a safe space. They have to decide on sports issues, where weight and stature matter, so we have single-sex sports. They have to decide whether children can change their pronouns and whether they should advise a child to refer to a gender identity clinic. They even have to make decisions as to whether they should keep that a secret or talk to a parent.
I completely understand that this is not an easy issue for adults, but we should not leave it so that we create such uncertainty for teachers. Many teachers have their own views and are conflicted in what they should say to the children in their charge. Even where the national curriculum says something that I think is straightforward, such as that there are two sexes and children should be taught that in biology, some teachers now do not know if they should be doing that because of the lack of guidance and the advice they are getting. Teachers are dealing with pressure groups, which have opposite ideas to each other, and are essentially taking the legal risk. They are the ones at risk of being accused by parents of teaching things that they do not want their children to learn because, within adult society and government, the framework has not been presented to them.
For young people, growing up is a difficult time when your body is changing. We have been all through it—our children and grandchildren are going through it—and it is not easy. Many young people have a very difficult relationship with their body, but they should not be encouraged to think that changing their sex is an answer to those dilemmas.
Yet in the last 10 years we have seen the number of girls who have been referred to a gender identity clinic going up from 32 to 1,740, while the number of boys has risen from 40 to 626. I do not know why that is happening, although I have read the theories and I can hazard a guess, but I know that those children are in someone’s school and have teachers in charge of their pastoral and academic well-being, yet we are not giving them the guidance to make effective decisions.
My own view is that sometimes you think, “Well, let’s go for a halfway house and permit social transitioning but not”—as I think we will not do now, following the Cass report—“refer children for puberty blockers”. But, once you start children on that journey, you may cause them psychological damage. We also know that the children who are referred to gender identity clinics are statistically far more likely to have mental health issues or be on the moderate to severe autism spectrum. Also, children change their minds. Thank goodness they do—it is part of growing up—so we should not make them commit and then enforce that commitment so that it is difficult to change their minds later on.
It is not just the children asking these questions, wondering whether they have been born into the wrong body, who are suffering because of our lack of providing a legal framework; it is every child in the school. If safe spaces and sports are changed, every child is affected by that.
The last thing I want to say, as strongly as I can, is that guidance is needed, and I hope the Minister can say it is being issued today. As strongly as I feel about children not being encouraged to change sex, I feel equally strongly than children must be listened to, whatever they say and whatever view they express. They must be taken seriously and supported. They must not be bullied, no matter how they present themselves, and links with parents must be maintained wherever possible. I genuinely hope that guidance is issued soon, and that very quickly adults can give guidance to teachers on how they deal with the next generation.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on securing this important debate, and I thank her for her comprehensive introduction. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. In her time as Secretary of State she put children at the heart of education, and she is right that safeguarding today is much better than it was in the past.
Safeguarding has a set of specific meanings regarding the protection of children and vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect and harm, defined, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned, in the Children Act 1989, including protecting children from maltreatment; preventing the impairment of children’s physical and mental health or development; ensuring that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care; and taking action to enable all children to have the best outcomes.
Ofsted describes good safeguarding practice as
“the culture a school creates to keep its pupils safe so that they can benefit fully from all that schooling offers. A positive and open safeguarding culture puts pupils’ interests first. Everyone who works with children is vigilant in identifying risks and reporting concerns. It is also about working openly and transparently with parents, local authorities and other stakeholders to protect pupils from serious harm, both online and offline, and about taking prompt and proportionate action”.
The Times Education Supplement’s guidance sets out the seven core issues that school governors and staff need to keep at the forefront of their minds when considering safeguarding. They are: child sexual abuse and CSA material online; child-on-child sexual violence and harassment, which sadly is growing worse; extremism and radicalisation; domestic abuse; adverse childhood experiences; trauma; and, last but not least, mental health.
Some 30 years ago, I held the portfolio for education and libraries on Cambridgeshire County Council. That summer, my new safeguarding responsibilities were brought home to me in a shocking case at one of the county’s primary schools. A caretaker had been grooming and abusing girls in years 5 and 6 but, when parents complained to the head, the response was, “No, no, our lovely caretaker could never do this”. But he had. As word went round the community, more and more former pupils and their parents came forward. The caretaker pleaded guilty, but many more children were abused because of preconceptions by those who should have protected them and investigated the first complaint. I tell this story because too often our own prejudices can miss something key that merits, at the very least, investigation and listening to the child. That is why over the years I have welcomed the strengthening of safeguarding.
School must be a place of safety for children. Sometimes that can mean safe from their parents too. One of the hardest things to do is to hear about or suspect child abuse or child sexual abuse from within the child’s home. Parents are not automatically involved in safeguarding reports regarding their children, as it is recognised that families are not automatically a safe environment for children, with some one in 14 children experiencing sexual abuse at the hands of their parents or guardians.
That is why we need mandatory reporting for abuse. Children cannot stop abuse; adults can. The 13th recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was for mandatory reporting, which would bring us nearer to the vast majority of other nations. A recent survey of 62 nations found that 80% of those participating had some form of mandatory reporting. Sadly, the Government’s response to the IICSA recommendations set out a very weak form of mandatory reporting. With no statutory offence for failing to report, it is not clear who will have the power to investigate or even to talk to the Disclosure and Barring Service.
These and other proposals are too weak to have any effect on reporting rates, so I ask the Minister why the Government are not following the examples particularly of Australia, Canada and others where adults in schools report that they are now more confident in raising suspicions to ensure investigation because of mandatory reporting frameworks. Mandatory reporting helps professional adults responsible for children by giving them a clear framework for taking action. By the way, this is not just a schools issue; it should cover regulated activities such as sports. We are seeing far too many scandals outside schools.
I turn to the safety of children who are LGBTQ+ and the proposals by some, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, to add a statutory notification to parents of any issues relating to their child. Experts say that creating an environment where a child is expected to suppress part of their identity is increasingly regarded by medical practitioners as harmful. Allowing exploration in safe environments away from predetermined outcomes—also known as “affirmative therapy”—is almost always beneficial. And by the way, if the child wishes to walk back from their initial feelings, they can do so without any harm. To ban it might cause further problems.
The Government’s own safeguarding guidelines, Keeping Children Safe in Education, say:
“The fact that a child or a young person may be LGBT is not in itself an inherent risk factor for harm”
and that LGBT children have protection from bullying and harassment under the Equality Act. It also says:
“Risks can be compounded where children who are LGBT lack a trusted adult with whom they can be open”.
If children and young people think they will automatically be outed to their parents, they may be less likely to confide in a trusted member of school staff, especially if they fear their parents having a hostile reaction. The NSPCC guidance on safeguarding LGBT children and young people states:
“You should discuss options with the young person and their parents or carers (as long as this does not put the young person at risk of harm)”.
In conclusion, the Government have taken some good steps forward on strengthening safeguarding and guidance, but we must find a way to truly protect our children and young people through strong regulatory practice and ensuring that we continue to put children at the heart of safeguarding.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I also warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin on initiating this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak after two other such distinguished Peers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris—whom I have greatly admired for a long time—and Lady Brinton, who made incredibly important points.
I was not going to raise transgender issues, gender dysphoria and all the rest today, because I always know who I disagree with and there are very few people I agree with—but I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. So, if asked for my views, I shall simply send people her speech.
Children need a stable, loving environment with consistent adults and long-term care. They need control as well as care and, of course, this should primarily come from the family. But for so many it does not, so the school has a pivotal and changing role. As has rightly been said, the expectations on teachers and head teachers have grown monumentally. Forty years ago, I used to work with Peter Wilson, who later ran Young Minds. We provided training sessions—I was working at the Maudsley—for teachers in inner city schools coping with children in devastating situations, with behaviour they could not understand and parental interventions that seemed to be absent. These teachers thought their job was to teach and were trying to get their heads round the right way to intervene and understand what was happening, how they could be helpful and what they should do.
Now, there is much greater clarity with all the safeguarding rules. The role of the school and the guidance provided are definitely a big step forward. Initially I was sceptical: when responsibility for children went from Health to Education, I was very uncomfortable. At Health, I worked hand in hand with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and his predecessor, Sir William Utting. As a Minister, I knew exactly what the social services inspectors were thinking and what was happening on the ground. I had to appear to give evidence at the Lambeth children’s inquiry the other day. I referred to the social services inspectors who came to the top of the office meeting every week. Now at Education it is a much more fractured relationship. You have a Children’s Commissioner, but it is not the same as sitting at the same top table and understanding on a daily basis.
Reference has been made to the Children Act. I pay tribute to our colleague, Lord Mackay, as well as to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, who I worked very closely with in her early days. She was a force on the Children Act. The Act has stood the test of time and I wondered why. I am able to share this. Every Government in every party have new initiatives, new programmes and new soundbites and, were the Government to change next year—which I think is most unlikely—I hope any incoming Government will not feel they have to start again and rebadge everything in their terms.
What is needed for legislation is consistency. The point about the Children Act is that an extraordinary civil servant, Rupert Hughes, had years of consultation with charities, local authorities and others, and took through the legislation. Then my job was largely the implementation, which was a lot of standing instruments and supplementary measures, again consulting with the same people. They had all been on the journey; they could see what had happened and would meet regularly together. In the health service, people despair because they think have found an answer and then the whole thing crumbles because of a new initiative or a new plan.
In praising those with whom I worked, I also really celebrate what is happening now. I greatly admire the effort and commitment at the Department for Education. Various themes come through. Social work is a wretched job: nobody thanks you for suggesting to a parent that they might be abusing a child. Nobody thanks you for leaving a child with parents who were abusing them. This is desperately emotionally draining and difficult and social workers are subject to ritual abuse whenever they get it wrong. So the work on the front line of trying to improve careers and support for social workers is fundamental.
Health visitors—the only people who legitimately can see children at home, take their clothes off and make sure they are physically well—play a crucial part. It is all about the early years. What did the Jesuits say? “Show me the child at seven and I will show you the man”. Turning a blind eye, waiting, delaying and hoping it will be all right means that damage goes undetected, unseen and neglected.
Of course, bringing up children is incredibly difficult. I see that with my grandchildren. I do not know how I ever was a mother; I probably was a very bad mother. My grandchildren have grandparents and uncles and aunts and a lovely place where we can go on holiday and be together. It takes a village to bring up a child—yes—but a lot of people do not have a village: they do not have a grandparent, a husband or a consistent neighbour. I simply cannot emphasise enough what we all need to do to help young parents cope. Margaret Harrison started Home-Start, a wonderful organisation. Lord Keith Joseph—the man who made me a Tory, for what it is worth—believed in the cycle of deprivation: that is what he talked about. What did he say about education? He said that the closest thing you have in education to a magic wand is the quality of the head teacher. That must be right. The responsibilities and the leadership they have are absolutely enormous.
I wanted to touch on mental health. It is a huge problem and we have to give it greater focus and understanding.
One-fifth of children leave school without even the most basic qualifications and too many are excluded. Education is your passport for the future: if you cannot read and write—and all magistrates like me will know the number of children in court who simply cannot read the oath—you do not have a hope going forward. We need to make sure that we give better alternative provision to those who are often slung out of school because they are an absolute nuisance and left to wander the streets. Those who need education most are getting it the least.
I want to commend the Online Safety Act, but I dare not. I would like the noble Baroness to have another debate on the subject, so that we can all say the things that we really wanted to say—but congratulations to her again.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I also join with everybody in congratulating my noble friend on securing this vital debate and on her excellent and clear opening speech. It is certainly an honour to follow my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone.
Safeguarding in schools is highly complex and varied and I will touch on only two areas today, relating to the need for neutrality in our education system. Neutrality implies tolerance of a multiplicity of views; it is therefore precious but fragile and should itself be safeguarded.
Starting with the school strikes against the action in Israel and Gaza, I declare my interest as the Christian vice-chair for the Council of Christians and Jews. It was founded in 1942 by Archbishop William Temple and Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz when the Holocaust was devastating European Jewry. Her late Majesty the Queen was patron throughout her whole reign.
These strikes raise serious safeguarding concerns, with hundreds of children leaving the security of school, in lesson time, for political protests in towns and city centres. Parents and teachers have very little control over who children meet or what they are exposed to, despite schools’ legal safeguarding duties set out in DfE statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education. Large crowds and a politically charged atmosphere mean that any school authorising pupils to attend a protest during school hours cannot be fully in control of the risks to safety and welfare.
Schools also risk breaching the Prevent duty, which requires them
“‘to help prevent the risk of people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism’. This includes safeguarding learners from extremist ideologies and radicalisation”.
Allowing children’s exposure to potentially genocidal or anti-Semitic slogans such as
“From the river to the sea”
without countervailing views, is the very opposite of safeguarding or good practice, which requires schools to maintain political neutrality.
Ideas must be introduced and then discussed in the round of their historical and political complexity. This is how lesson time on these highly vexed issues should be spent. We need young people to be interested in and well-informed about politics. Stating political positions as self-evident facts intimidates learners and shuts down debate. Can my noble friend the Minister inform the House whether guidance requires ideological issues to be introduced in a well-rounded and nuanced way? Is her department investigating how, precisely, children became involved in these school strikes, how they were made aware of and then joined public protests outside the school gate?
Similarly, is the department investigating how extreme trans ideology, which presents schools with significant safeguarding concerns, was allowed to be adopted as fact, when it too is far from neutral? Teaching children, including in early primary school, about gender fluidity further entrenches the sexualisation of childhood, conjoined as it often is with “sex positivity”. The fact of the legal age of consent seems to be ignored despite the key safeguarding reasons underlying it. Our zeitgeist is deeply rooted in the notion that the development of sexuality is indispensable to identity. This is not some fundamental human truth but the idea of Sigmund Freud. To quote Keynes,
“ideas … both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else”.
The education system should be a bulwark against pernicious ideas evolving into domineering and bullying ideologies, and not simply affirm both them and the young people persuaded by them.
I am not using the word “ideology” as a slur against a way of thinking that is simply different to my own, but in the Althusserian sense, that
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence”.
Extreme trans ideology states, “I am what I feel, irrespective of my biology”. It is the epitome of expressive individualism and detached from reality. I draw a key distinction between gender dysphoria, where sufferers and psych professionals know there is something wrong, and ideological dispositions held, for example, by bodily intact males who intend to remain so but feel they are female and aggressively demand to be treated as such. Schools should not consider themselves bound by the individual’s desire to have this imagined reality validated, even if parents are on board with it. Parents cannot dictate how schools are run for the sake of their child: a decision to affirm a child’s chosen rather than biological identity affects the whole school. Other children can feel or even be genuinely coerced into affirming an individual’s imagined reality. It confuses young children and stifles the development of older children’s critical capacity. Elsewhere, their education requires them to be led by facts and evidence, but in this particular area feelings trump all else.
The potential for harm to the young person who wants to socially transition is a major safeguarding concern. Social transitioning is the first step on the road to physical and pharmaceutical changes that will last their whole lives and are often deeply regretted.
I end where I began, with the need for neutrality. Dr Hilary Cass, as we have heard, concluded that “social transition” is not neutral but a major psychosocial intervention that may affect whether a child’s gender distress disappears or becomes long-lasting. In this age of affirmation, the ideologically driven imperative to be kind has blinded schools to their foundational safeguarding responsibilities. Will the DfE guidance make that clear?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for obtaining this important debate. My focus today is on sport. I speak as a father and grandfather of girls and boys who are and have been active in sport. In making this speech, I am grateful for the great help I have received from the charity Women in Sport.
Sport develops important fundamental movement skills. It shapes attitudes towards physical activity. Sporting activity is essential if we are to turn our children into adults with healthy lifestyles. Today, we too often fail in this. We must do better or we will have a lot of fat, unhealthy adults. To effect this, we must start at primary school level. There, teachers and coaches must recognise that there are important differences, even at that age, between the sexes.
Even before puberty, the evidence is plain that boys have a physical advantage. Innate testosterone gives speed, strength and stamina. Young boys will generally—not always but generally—be slightly faster and stronger than girls, and that applies throughout the primary school age bracket. To avoid demotivating girls, primary schools must recognise and act on this, giving girls the chance to compete against other little girls. At secondary level, the biological impacts of puberty really kick in. Boys grow much taller, stronger and with greater cardiovascular capacity than their female classmates. For girls, the physical changes of puberty often create embarrassment and awkwardness; periods become a barrier to being active.
As if that were not enough, in mixed sport, girls simply lose the chance to win, to build self-esteem and even to have safe sport. Teenage mixed sport damages confidence and, worse, risks physical health. To safeguard girls, they must be offered proper female sporting opportunities. Differences in sporting performance and in strength between boys and girls mean that girls will not win races if they do not have their own. In team sports—football, hockey, rugby, cricket—it becomes a safety issue. In secondary schools, girls must not have to share their changing rooms with boys, including, if necessary, trans-identifying boys. Teenage girls must have privacy.
It is a stated aim of all the sports councils funded via DCMS to try to get more girls active and to keep them active. Mixed-sex sport in schools undermines that goal. The ChildWise Monitor Report of August 2022 found a significant gender gap in access to sports. For example, only 33% of girls aged 11 to 16 said they play football in school, compared to 63% of boys. Single-sex sport is fundamental to fairness, to safety and to participation. Mixed-sex sport can have an adverse impact on girls, even in primary schools.
Let me quote one or two examples of what parents with primary school children have said:
“On sports day, all our races were mixed. No little girls won anything”.
“My daughter said, ‘what’s the point?’”
Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies MBE says she gets messages all the time from parents and coaches who are afraid to say anything publicly about this. School sports days are being made co-ed because they do not want the hassle of dealing with the trans issue.
I repeat that girls-only sports sessions are fundamentally important because they encourage participation. Those in authority in schools really must take this seriously and act to protect and encourage our girls. Effective safeguarding in schools includes and must include sport. This means recognising the physical differences of the two sexes and giving practical effect to what is needed.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and I would like to introduce him to my 12 year-old daughter if he feels that girls cannot compete against boys at sports. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for giving us the opportunity to talk on such a vital topic. I can only stand here and admire the expertise in the Chamber.
To say that safeguarding in schools is important is like saying that it is useful to be able to breathe, so I assume that all noble Lords agree on this basic point. As, I believe, the only working teacher in both Houses of Parliament, I thought I would give the House my view of safeguarding from the trenches, as it were. I work in a very high-performing school in a challenging part of Hackney—which, incidentally, bans mobile phones. As Peter J Hughes, our CEO, wrote in his recent book on school leadership:
“Children in our Hackney community die. Children in our hackney community are often routinely stopped under Operation Trident. Children in our Hackney community are strip-searched and subjected to adultification in presumed places of safety. I am very aware that these are three very powerful statements, but they are true and they are every carer’s, parent’s, teacher’s, principal’s, CEO’s and community’s worst nightmare. It is something we cannot and will not ignore”.
It is against a backdrop like this that a school has get its safeguarding right. Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. This is repeatedly drummed into teachers, ancillary workers and students. A change of behaviour in the playground, a dirty shirt collar or a new pair of trainers can be an indicator of abuse or grooming. Every one of those has to be reported, for it could be the final piece in a jigsaw puzzle. Playgrounds are great places to spot how a behaviour has changed, a pattern has emerged, a gang has formed, or a student has been isolated by online bullying. This is the front line—the short-term reaction—but in fact safeguarding is more than that. Schools should be fun places where pupils want to learn and teachers want to teach, and can succeed in this only when we begin to get some of the 1.8 million children who, according to the Children’s Commissioner, regularly miss school back into regular attendance. On this topic, I ask the Minister to comment on the Children’s Commissioner’s call that every school should have a legal duty to report its attendance daily.
As the Government’s guidance says:
“It is about the culture a school creates to keep its pupils safe so that they can benefit fully from all that schooling offers”.
That can be as simple as not setting an essay question like “A trip to the beach” or “A walk in the woods”, because a significant amount of children will not have experienced this and they could feel isolated. We are told not to celebrate the end of term because, for many children, school holidays signal the end of any structure to their life, including a hot meal, and a descent into chaos or just sheer boredom. For the majority, this is not abuse in the classic sense; it is just that parents and carers are too busy or distracted to provide more than the basics of life without any further stimulation or companionship.
Schools are where students can receive kindness, from their friends and teachers, and build and nurture relationships. Any teacher will tell you that it is the genuine connections with students that make them go to work each day. It is also about the environment of the school. The head teacher of my school, Rebecca Warren, always talks about the broken-window syndrome, whereby if something is left unfixed, be it damage or graffiti, more serious damage will follow. We underestimate the impact that school surroundings make on students; if small damages go unrepaired, then there is a sign of a more substantial malaise in the school. I think we also underestimate the subconscious effect on students that, if the school does not care about the building, it does not care about them. This is one thing that does not require much money, just organisation. The worry is that this could be another, as yet unseen, consequence of the RAAC saga.
Safeguarding needs to be baked into the curriculum and this is where Government and schools can do more to help changing behaviours in students, thereby helping from within. There are some lessons that need to be threaded through the term, rather than just saved for PHSCE, the once-a-term day when these topics are normally discussed. Many parents and children see this day as another Inset day, particularly those who hold beliefs that are challenged by the subjects studied then. Surely they are the students who would most benefit from a balanced debate on such subjects. Tender is a charity that uses drama workshops to provide a safe space where young people can rehearse for real-life scenarios and recognise what makes something healthy or unhealthy behaviour. By using this in drama lessons that all students study, say in year 7, all students can get a deep understanding of the issues. This could be more useful than a lifetime of PHSCE days, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on embedding more strategies for safeguarding and general well-being into the curriculum, rather than on drop-down days.
I have been trying to be as optimistic as I can around this subject and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, that things have improved. There are great stories of great people doing great work but, while there are so many children living in poverty, a school is limited to what it can do. I spoke to a safeguarding lead recently who said that if they were one of these children today, particularly the boys, they would be in a gang, for so many of them feel that it is the only way they can earn money, perhaps for their family or even for a new set of trainers, because they see no other way out beyond starting to carry packages for cash. My Lords, we have a lot of work to do.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for securing this debate and all other noble Lords for their insightful contributions. Along with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I would like to share a few reflections on the role that safeguarding plays in an area that goes hand in hand with the educational setting, that of sport.
Safeguarding is at the heart of what sport embodies, ensuring fair play in a safe and fun environment. For “teacher”, think “coach”. For “pupil”, think “athlete”. For “parent”—well, they are irreplaceable. I declare an interest as a parent of children who are in school and take part extensively in curricular and extracurricular sport. I also sit on the other side of the fence, in that I am on the management group of one of our highest-performing Olympic sports. I am chair of one of our sports national governing bodies in the UK and sit on the finance committee of its international federation. Alongside performance, safeguarding is at the core of what we do. In the short time we have available, I will not be able to do justice to the vital work that UK Sport and colleagues in other national governing bodies are doing in this important area. Just last week, I attended its annual PLx conference and one of the sessions was dedicated to this precise topic: safeguarding in sport. Sarah Powell, CEO of British Gymnastics, and Andy Salmon, CEO of British Triathlon, are spearheading this on behalf of UK Sport.
One of the key concerns that all sports are facing, because of the complexity and jeopardy involved with safeguarding, is that coaches are losing the confidence to coach. I am sure that educators would say that teachers are also losing the confidence to teach. The issue is that all sports, whether dealing with adults or children—and not only those that have a robust regulatory framework to work within—need to become safeguarding compliant. We need to require minimum safeguarding standards for any sport, particularly those taking place in an educational or informal setting. Those of us involved in the governance of sport are committed to ensuring the highest standards of integrity, welfare and safeguarding across all sport. We are clear that anyone who does not want to abide by these standards is not welcome in sport.
We all know how important sport is to the nation, and particularly to children. Education is crucial to people’s mental health, as sport is to their physical health. I will not rehearse the arguments that place sport at the centre of our national well-being and our psyche.
At its heart, safeguarding is about the protection of people—in this case, children. However, protecting children also protects the adults who interact with them. The NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit’s definition states:
“Safeguarding refers to the process of protecting children and adults to provide safe and effective care”.
Governmental education institutions and sport national governing bodies need to harmonise. All international and national governing bodies have leadership roles to play, to provide and be provided with guidance and best practice, enabling convergence of policy and legislation.
This brings me on to a topic I have spent quite a bit of time on, albeit through the lens of sports governance: gender versus sex classification in sport. There are some simple concepts that I feel will help build an understanding of this sometimes complex and confusing subject. Gender can be fluid, with up to 107 identified to date. On the other hand, biological sex is essentially binary, determined at birth and known as birth, natal or assigned sex. There are further complexities in defining sex, so how do we, and should we, make sense of this complexity?
Quite simply, the key here is that within safeguarding, there has to be a protected characteristic. In sport, that is female, both from a competitive standpoint and in terms of social and environmental construct. The reason why we have biological male and female categories, not, erroneously, men’s and women’s—terms generally used in gender identification—is that females are considered to be disadvantaged physiologically. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, even in amateur recreational sport, it is unfair and unsafe for them to play against biological males. Female sport, whether high-performance professional or recreational amateur, should be a protected category.
I know from personal experience what it is like for my eight year-old daughter—who, by the way, is no shrinking violet—to want to play football but to have to do so in a mixed environment where she is the only girl. Again, as my noble friend also highlighted, this acts as a huge disincentive for young girls to play sport. Trans activists will try to claim that this amounts to discrimination. My clear response to that, in the performance environment, is that trying to exploit ambiguities within classification in sport is tantamount to doping. It is a form of cheating. A person who is born a male, even if they transition pre or post-puberty, will always have a physiological advantage over a biological female. No amount of reassignment will change that.
There will always be differences that lead to unfair advantages. Allowing a biologically male trans person to play alongside natal females, unless all players consent, or allowing that person access to female changing facilities, are not safe practices. Consider when a male trans athlete causes a life-changing injury to a female player because of their vastly differing physiologies. Ask females what they feel about intact males entering intimate spaces such as changing rooms. They feel extremely vulnerable and possibly violated, and I suggest that if anyone allows this to happen, they are in clear breach of safeguarding and are promoting harm.
I am liberal-minded enough to believe that people should be able to express themselves in ways they see fit, as long as it does not have an adverse impact on other people’s enjoyment of life or, in this case, an activity in the educational or recreational setting. The key issue here is consent. People who are affected by an accommodation to allow a trans athlete to compete need to consent and not have it imposed upon them against their will by an ill-equipped governing body, or have the issue hijacked by extreme gender ideology and people with aberrant or criminal intent.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I join with others in thanking my noble friend Lady Jenkin for initiating this debate. I also thank all contributors so far for their thoughtful and helpful comments and ideas on this difficult and complex subject. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for challenging us with his interesting speech. As a former teacher, I empathised a great deal with his contribution, and I thank him for it.
Safeguarding involves thinking the unthinkable. This does not mean that we always assume the worst, but that we attempt to consider all possibilities and mitigate risk where possible. We should not underestimate the role and importance that single-sex spaces play in safeguarding. A simple policy that safeguards and protects girls when they are undressing, sleeping or otherwise vulnerable is providing a single-sex space such as lavatories, changing rooms and dormitories. Yet, we are seeing numerous examples of this simple policy being ignored, often under the guise of being progressive or inclusive. A recent report from Policy Exchange found that at least 28% of secondary schools are not maintaining single-sex lavatories. This is not only a safeguarding issue; it is against the law.
Under the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012, schools are legally required to provide single-sex lavatories and washing facilities for children aged over eight, except where the lavatory facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and is intended for use by one pupil at a time. If a school has changed all previous sex-separated facilities to mixed-sex without fulfilling this requirement, it is in breach of the law.
We hear of incidents such as one at a school where the police were called over allegations that female pupils were sexually assaulted in its gender-neutral lavatories. In another case, a teenage boy was arrested over four allegations of serious sexual assault at an Essex school. A newspaper reported that three of the alleged attacks took place in lavatories used by boys and girls. Also:
“A secondary school has been criticised over its unisex lavatories after a teenage girl was injured when a male classmate allegedly kicked down a cubicle door to photograph her”.
Many schools are adopting policies that replace sex with gender and set rules which require staff and young people to ignore or make it taboo to talk about a person’s actual sex if they prefer to be referred to as the opposite sex. This conflicts with safeguarding legislation and principles. Staff, pupils and parents raising safeguarding concerns about mixed-sex facilities, often introduced in an effort to get the approval of lobby groups, are dismissed as transphobic or pressured into using language that erases risk. Safeguarding systems cannot work where people are not able to speak clearly and openly about risks. Safeguarding is everyone’s business, including that of society as a whole. By not utilising a “safeguarding first” approach, we are letting down our children. Perhaps it is time for a public inquiry.
My noble friend Lady Jenkin and others have talked about how safeguarding is defined in “Working Together to Safeguard Children”. This child-centred approach is fundamental to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of every child. A child-centred approach means keeping the child in focus when making decisions about their lives, and working in partnership with them and their families.
Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. All practitioners should follow the principles of the Children Acts 1989 and 2004, which state that the welfare of children is paramount and that they are best looked after within their families, with their parents playing a full part in their lives, unless compulsory intervention in family life is necessary.
Everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe. No single practitioner can have a full picture of a child’s needs and circumstances and, if children and families are to receive the right help at the right time, everyone who comes into contact with them has a role to play in identifying concerns, sharing information and taking prompt action.
Advice from lobby groups regarding keeping information about a child’s distress confidential from parents, family and other agencies, and refusing to share teaching materials with parents, directly contradicts safeguarding guidance on information sharing. Fears about sharing information must not be allowed to stand in the way of the need to promote the welfare, and protect the safety, of children, which must always be the paramount concern.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I join everybody else in thanking my noble friend Lady Jenkin for securing time for this important and interesting debate.
As a historian, I will give your Lordships a brief oversight into the history of transgenderism, as I think it will help throw some light on the current debate. For the previous 30 centuries or so before the 1960s, while there is plenty of evidence of hermaphroditism and cross-dressing, there have been remarkably few people who genuinely believe that they have become a member of the other sex from the one in which they were born. We have the Roman Emperor Heliogabalus from the early third century AD, who the historian Dio Cassius says asked his doctors to change his sex, but there is no indication that they did this for him. He had five marriages and four wives—he married one wife twice. There is no real indication that he changed his sex, although the North Hertfordshire Museum has him down with female personal pronouns.
Then, there was the very colourful Chevalier d’Éon in the late 18th century, who in 1777, at the age of 49, declared that he was a woman. That was accepted by Louis XVI and the British courts, although it was comprehensively disproven at the time of his post-mortem. In the 19th century, the female Albert Cashier fought in the American Civil War as a man. In 1952, the first actual sex change took place in America, for Christine Jorgensen. Here in Britain, it was in 1960 with April Ashley and in 1964 with the historian Jan Morris, whom I knew tangentially. The very fact that we know these people’s names and that they are well known to history is indicative of how rare this phenomenon was.
Then came the 1960s, when post-modernist thought posited that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that if you feel something, or you think you feel something, that is your truth, which has equal validity to objective truth. The objective truth is that whatever the sexuality you choose—you have the right to choose whichever one you want—you genuinely cannot change your biological sex.
The term “transgender” did not come into existence until the 1990s, but in Britain today, normal Britons who speak about this to their GPs are six times more likely to say that they are transgender than they were 10 years ago. This has all the hallmarks of a classic example of social contagion, in which the internet, smartphones and social media, the fashion and advertising industries, various pressure groups, TV programmes and some doctors, who undertake mutilating surgery on perfectly healthy bodies, have come together to create what is, essentially, a new ideology—one not anchored in the human experience of the past 3,000 years of recorded history.
The result has been a breakdown in social structures, where men are to be found in women’s prisons, women’s lavatories, women’s changing rooms, as we heard earlier in the debate, and women’s sports—places where they do not belong and have no right to be. As with everything to do with transgenderism, common sense seems to fly out of the window.
It is our duty to help teachers safeguard children as much as possible from being unduly exposed to this historically new phenomenon, which we must of course tolerate because we are civilised people, but which ought to be extremely rare, as it has been for three millennia before our present age.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia for his important historical perspective.
I join others in thanking my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington, not just for securing this important debate but for her courageous commitment to facilitating balanced and well-informed consideration of such vital issues as protecting the integrity of women’s sport, defending women’s and girls’ rights to safe spaces, and exposing, in many cases, the unintended consequences for women and children of the affirmation of gender self-identity, whether in our prisons or the classroom. I say “courage” because, sadly, that is essential to brave the bile and vitriol which anyone who has the temerity to challenge the cancel culture extremism seems to attract. We need only look at how JK Rowling, Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock and Joanna Cherry KC MP have been treated to know just how true that is.
It is hard to think of anywhere where the extremism, in terms of the intensity of the battle that we have heard about during this debate going on for the hearts and minds of our young people, is more acute than in the classroom and schools. To all intents and purposes, they have become a battleground. Anyone who has been through adolescence knows that it is torment enough without the complexity of considering whether you have been born in the wrong body or should change your gender.
I am not a parent, nor will I ever be one. The very strong probability that any child of mine would have the same condition that I have precludes that possibility. Others with brittle bones make different choices and I respect them for that, but I know I am not strong enough to risk visiting on anyone the pain, shame and discrimination that I have experienced as a result of it. But an inability to speak as a parent should not disqualify me, or anyone else, from voicing concern about the threat posed to the integrity and effectiveness of safeguarding guidance by advice from lobby groups that information about a child’s distress—perhaps about their gender—should be kept confidential from parents, family and other agencies, and that teaching materials should be treated as confidential and not shared with parents. Surely, that directly contradicts safeguarding guidance on information sharing.
As a disabled person, I have a personal vested interest in safeguarding progress towards greater equality, whether on the protected characteristics of disability, sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Progress on each invariably impacts on the whole. Moreover, I am sure we all have reason to be grateful for the courage of people such as Simon Fanshawe, not just for co-founding Stonewall in 1989 but more recently for reminding us that
“Spaces have to be safe for disagreement, not from disagreement”—
in other words, and I paraphrase, that cancel culture is counterproductive because extremism engenders extremism, which puts progress towards equality as a whole at risk.
What I find remarkable is the extent to which the equality landscape has been transformed in the almost three and a half decades since Stonewall’s foundation, in no small part due to its formidable campaigning. I say “equality landscape” because I would not be in the least bit surprised if many people saw issues such as equal marriage as almost a key performance indicator of society’s attitudes towards equality per se. That is undoubtedly to Stonewall’s credit, but having played so crucial a role in securing that progress, surely it has an equally key role to play—indeed, a responsibility—to safeguard progress towards greater equality. I am not sure it appreciates that. In fact, Stonewall’s ostracisation of Simon Fanshawe and its unfortunate association with an aggressive, polarising cancel culture, the promotion of gender self-identity in our schools, and, at best, an indifference to the erosion of women’s and girls’ rights to safe spaces suggests the opposite.
That is such a shame, because the extremism generated is inevitably provoking a backlash across the piece. In my experience as a disabled person, such a climate is legitimising regressive attitudes towards and treatment of disabled people, which I thought was ancient history. Progress towards equality is so precious. History shows that it is also incredibly fragile. That is why safeguarding progress towards equality for future generations depends on our safeguarding the current generation of children and young people in school today.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and I commend his continual efforts to preserve and safeguard disability rights in this place and outside of it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for her leadership in introducing this debate so powerfully on the exponential rise in children’s suffering.
I wish to make some general points about safeguarding, and particularly about the impact of Prevent and the Channel programme on Muslim children. Although not currently practising, I have been a social worker since 1984, qualifying and later working mostly in east London. Keeping children safe and protecting their welfare requires a multiagency response and structures, which includes social workers, police, health visitors, local safeguarding boards and medical staff.
Safeguarding has indeed evolved over the decades—many will argue for the better, while many more will cite inadequate resources constraining the support that families under duress urgently require. Around 3 million cases of child abuse are reported each year, with 5.5 million children involved. NSPCC alone has this year received 22,000 referrals of children deemed unsafe. This House has debated childhood experience of trauma on countless occasions, and we know all too well that poverty, physical and sexual abuse, drugs, caring responsibilities, experience of racism and other forms of discrimination, witnessing violence in their homes, online pornography and bullying cause untold damage to children’s mental well-being.
These facets are common among all our children across the UK. As with violence against women, such experiences are regardless of class, gender, race and faith. As an experienced social worker working with children and families, I am cognisant of the pressures of managing statutory intervention, which is complex. One cannot overemphasise the trauma and anguish of all families, whether a family member is the perpetrator or not. It causes immense turbulence to the child and their siblings. It has to be said that when, on occasions, cases concerning children from minority backgrounds were dropped or closed, this was often due to a profound lack of understanding of family nuances, cultural norms and practices, as well as of languages, and was frequently based on the premise that somehow children, particularly young girls, were more vulnerable, in part to do with their race and/or culture or faith.
In this context, I wish to raise some matters relating to Prevent and Channel, and the duty that requires all education providers to help prevent the risk of people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, which then triggers a multiagency approach to safeguarding when children and young people are deemed vulnerable, and at risk of radicalisation and extremism. The Prevent duty extension to public bodies has led to young Muslim children in particular being seen through the lens of security. As a result, social workers, police officers and perhaps even some teachers believe that children as young as four could be radicalised—equivalent to, “In the womb, potential future terrorists lie”. Education institutions have been issued guidance that promotes some mendacious ideas, such as that signs of radicalisation may include references to, “Allahu Akbar”, “Alhamdulillah”, which means praise be to God, and international conflicts, especially Palestine, as we now see. Teachers who do not have the sufficient training or knowledge go as far suggesting to children that prayers are not obligatory, and a Muslim Council of Britain report cites an example of a science class on nuclear fission where making a bomb was discussed and a child of Muslim faith being the only one to be referred for safeguarding concerns when he discussed it.
Prevent has caused much unnecessary misery and suffering for children and families. One report suggests that, of 4,406 referrals to Prevent in the year to March 2022, 76% were deemed unsuitable for Channel consideration and exited the process. The majority of those—77%—were signposted to other services, including educational and health support.
A report by Rights Watch UK concludes, and I agree, that Prevent, and in particular the introduction of the statutory duty on teachers and other public servants to report signs of radicalisation, is stifling children’s fundamental rights and freedoms, including to freedom of expression and belief. It dehumanises many very young children and has a detrimental impact on their mental health, self-confidence and trust in those who have responsibility for their well-being. On many occasions, children are referred without their parents’ knowledge or consent. This is not about child sexual abuse or physical abuse; it is about children’s thinking and behaviour. There is a clear need for safe spaces where young people can express their feelings and opinions without threat and fear of a safeguarding referral.
The Prevent process is obstructive and creates significant alienation and lack of faith in the education system. To undermine young minds in such a brutal manner violates trust and may cause their long-term mental well-being to suffer, as well as detrimentally impacting their education. We are familiar with the horrifying numbers: in July 2021 one in six children aged five to 16 were identified as having a probable mental health problem in July 2021; now it is almost five children in every classroom. NHS figures show that more than a million children needed treatment for serious mental health problems in the past year, as reported by the Telegraph earlier this year.
Children are the product of their environment, home and society. Information on international events will be visible to many homes, online, in schools and in playgrounds, and certainly happening in school council debates all over the country. These matters must not shut down children of any backgrounds or faiths. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage children to express their views without fear of punitive measures on them and their families. Building resilient children who are our future is an absolute obligation to which each of us must be united to ensure our common humanity and a peaceful society.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of schools is to educate, but if there is an even important purpose it is to safeguard the children in their care. The vast majority of teachers take that seriously, but there are concerns that the education that some schools provide is actually a risk to children. We might even ask if “education” is the right word for it. When schooling is captured by an ideological agenda, it leads to poor, uncritical education, and schools can become blind to what really is in the best interest of children, or blind to the risks that they are exposing them to—especially on sexual issues.
The Sex Education Forum is a sort of trade body for the sex education industry. It downplays these concerns, but you would expect that because it is implicated in the failures that we are talking about. Safeguarding concerns should never be downplayed. Clear boundaries and transparency are key principles of safeguarding. If a concern is raised, it has to be properly investigated. The evidence must be examined, and those with the responsibility of overseeing education must not allow themselves to be fobbed off by people claiming that they can be trusted and that there is nothing to worry about. The source of the problem is third-party organisations which present themselves to schools as experts—organisations offering advice, training, teaching materials and even external speakers to come in and deliver lessons. In reality, many of them are highly partisan campaign groups with agendas that conflict with some of the duties placed on schools. Regrettably, this radicalism has been prevalent in the sector for some time. Jessica Ringrose is a board member of the Queering Education Research Institute, a professor at UCL and an adviser to the School of Sexuality Education, which provides speakers. She was a lead author on an academic paper—I just want to read a few lines from its abstract:
“In this paper we explore our experiences working as a team, who have formed an intra-activist research and pedagogical assemblage to experiment with RSE practices. We draw upon phEmaterialism theory and socially engaged, participatory arts-based research methodologies and pedagogies to explore two examples of arts-based activities that have been developed to de-center humanist, male-dominated, phallocentric, penile-oriented RSE”.
This is from a journal called Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, and the article is entitled “Play-Doh Vulvas and Felt Tip Dick Pics: Disrupting Phallocentric Matter(s) in Sex Education”.
These people are not even pretending not to be activists. We should be much more sceptical about the materials that these organisations are producing. Ringrose’s research boasts of one example where 12 year-old girls were tasked with working in groups using sexually explicit images some had received on their phones. These organisations know that they are up to no good. I say that because the School of Sexuality Education was the organisation behind the Clare Page case. When she complained as a mum about what her children were being shown in sex education, the School of Sexuality Education told the school that it was not allowed to show the classroom materials to anyone, citing commercial confidentiality. Not being able to refer to the materials hampered her ability to effectively progress her complaint. Norfolk Council’s scheme—a Conservative council—for primary schools instructs children to make plasticine models to illustrate
“a condom catching semen from a penis”,
and gives inaccurate information about the age of consent. Six and seven year-olds in Warwickshire—a Conservative council—were asked to discuss the scenario of a girl who enjoys touching herself between her legs when she has a bath. Thankfully, that programme was withdrawn by the council, but only under the threat of legal action. On gender ideology, in addition to the excessively explicit nature of some sex education, we now have the pervasive presentation of gender ideology as a fact. A lesson plan from the group Kapow presented children with a spectrum of stereotypical male and female interests, and instructed them to match their own so-called gender identity in relation to the spectrum. Then it told them to ignore what anybody else says to them about their gender and choose their own.
This distancing of pupils from the influence of others, especially their own parents, is dangerous; it is a safeguarding issue in itself. Parents are often not aware of what is going on with their own kids in sex education. Even when they are, they are often made to feel powerless, and there seems to be a deliberate strategy to reduce the influence of parents over the education of their own children. Some brave parents submit formal complaints, but it is hard for them to get anyone to listen to them and actually change anything. If they work through all the stages of a school’s complaints process without success, and if they still have the energy to continue, they can escalate it to the Department for Education, but the department does not seem to handle these complaints well. In one case I have been made aware of, a parent has been waiting for well over a year for the DfE to respond substantially to an escalated complaint. In another, the DfE says that it received the complaint but then lost it. The parent printed it out again and posted it off two months ago—she is still waiting. Perhaps the Minister might agree to meet me to discuss these cases. It seems that the DfE is effectively disempowering parents who are courageous enough to make a stand and, while they wait for a response to their complaints, children continue to be exposed to materials that their parents regard as unsuitable and harmful. The School of Sexuality Education contributed to two of the DfE’s own RSHE training modules for teachers. I am afraid we must ask whether the DfE has not been captured and compromised itself. The situation is a mess: it is imperative that the Secretary of State and her Ministers get a grip and act urgently.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, on her opening speech. There was very little in it that I disagreed with. I want to associate myself with the powerful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, a teacher in the London Borough of Hackney, an area I know well. I live in Tower Hamlets, where, for the most part, I also experienced my education.
I was not intending to say this, but I find elements of what I have heard today deeply troubling. They remind me of how people referred to me as a gay man across the decades, and what dehumanisation and defaming does. Yes, I say to the noble Baroness shaking her head; defamation and dehumanisation is a threat to life. I experienced no safeguarding during my school years and subsequently, as a queer, I experienced years of sexual and physical abuse until the age of 15. Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt, I am passionate about adequate, proportionate and essential safeguarding and empowering young people, especially those who belong to minorities.
I also wish to refute the misrepresentation of Stonewall by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. I am proud to be a co-founder of that organisation and I still support it.
It is absolutely clear to anyone listening to this debate or otherwise, or taking the slightest interest in safeguarding, that addressing the concerns that we have heard about today is important—and addressing them with teachers and other professionals within the schools sector. It is vital that we engage professionals and practitioners in these areas, and not leave it to the whims and wishes of others offering, generally, nothing more than anecdotal evidence or allegations in the press.
Due to current levels of interest in young trans people in schools, I wish to recall that, five years ago, the Government committed to producing guidance for schools to support—I repeat, support—children who are questioning their gender. There is a range of views about how best to support young people, but there is clear consensus that guidance is needed. Just yesterday during her Statement in the other place, the Minister for Women and Equalities repeated her assurance that the guidance would be issued “shortly”. I hope that this is not another characteristically empty promise from the Government. I say to the Women and Equalities Minister that it is preferable to produce Statements, whether external or within the House, and guidance, based on evidence and not on wild allegations.
Safeguarding, as has been mentioned, has a specific meaning regarding the protection of children and vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect and harm. It is also worth repeating what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: parents are not automatically involved in safeguarding reports regarding their children, as it is recognised that not all families are automatically a safe environment for children. Some one in 14 children experiences sexual abuse at the hands of their parents or guardians. Again to repeat the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, creating an environment where a child is expected to suppress a part of their identity is increasingly regarded by medical practitioners as harmful.
Preventing a child accessing beneficial treatment can also be considered to be neglect or abuse, which therefore falls into safeguarding concerns. A 2022 report by Galop, the LGBT+ anti-abuse charity, found that 43% of trans people had suffered abuse at the hands of their family. From listening to some of the statements about trans people, one does not much wonder why. Another study, in 2016, reported that family rejection has a positive correlation with both suicide attempts and substance misuse.
To repeat, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the safeguarding of children and young people must protect all children and young people, without reservation or exclusion. That includes LGBTQ+, non-binary and intersex people. Furthermore, any relationship and sex education in schools must be inclusive, and there must be no attempt to create another Section 28, or Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, which caused so much harm to so many people.
While I recognise that most people hold their views seriously and sincerely, I say directly to the Minister that there must be no return to the prejudice and hate of the past. It must be resisted on every occasion. There should be no return to the ignorance—sometimes well-intentioned ignorance—that contributed to the fear that harmed and damaged so many young people. Dehumanisation and defamation do not safeguard anyone, and they result in crimes against persons who are perceived as different.
Trans people are not a threat. Lawbreakers and rule-breakers are a threat, but there are well-organised, well-funded campaigns to demonise, defame and misrepresent LGBT+ people, especially trans people. That is utterly shameful. It will do no good to anyone and will only continue to create misery and harm for LGBT+ young people, trans people and their families. Indeed, it undermines the very society in which we all live.
As a civilised society, we need to protect vulnerable minorities and young people and children who associate or belong within those minorities. Every child and young person should have the inalienable right to be themselves, authentically and without fear. Our futures depend on it: indeed, their futures depend upon it.
Finally, I ask the Minister for an unequivocal assurance that any approach to safeguarding is based on verifiable evidence and not on opinion or anecdote. It is sad that I have to request this, but I seek a categorical reassurance that no child or young person will be left behind, that no child or young person, including LGBT+, non-binary and intersex, will be isolated, and that each child or young person will be enabled, indeed encouraged, to grow, achieve their unique potential and develop their own identity.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, that was a very impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I too had not intended to say this, but I want to make the point that I support minorities and the underdog. But six days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, tweeted on X:
“The right wing in the House of Lords has organised a debate for the 7th of December on safeguarding in schools! We must push back against these people”.
What on earth did he mean? Debbie Hayton, the respected teacher and trans woman, responded:
“Pushing back against those concerned about safeguarding is maybe not what you meant, Michael?”
So first I congratulate my dear noble friend Lord Stansgate, who is sitting on the Woolsack for the first time. I also thank my kinswoman and noble friend Lady Jenkin for securing this important debate.
Schools are a place where children should be nurtured and nourished, a place of safety where they can grow up slowly, safe from the outside world and some of the more unpleasant and pernicious influences that inhabit our world and, from time to time, cross our paths. Pornography is one of those influences that I am sure every noble Peer and person in this Chamber agrees should not be available in schools—but I am afraid it is; it is readily available.
In my day, as a red-blooded sixth-former, you might chance upon a well-thumbed copy of Playboy or Mayfair, which were fairly benign, But now, due to the internet and the fact that so many children of the age of 12 or younger have smartphones, a huge panoply of pornography of every type is revealed and is so easily accessed. A young child merely has to tick a box stating that they are 18 or over and they are in.
Internet porn is readily available and there is so much of it. Many more people are exposed to it and/or choose to watch it in the anonymity of their own home, safe from prying eyes. We know from many things that we find on the internet that it is very easy to head down the rabbit hole. It is the same with pornography, with increasing categories of depravity available. Think of the category of rough sex and go further, to where young girls—it is always young girls—are abused, often by multiple men. I will stop there but, believe me, it gets worse.
What is worrying is the effect that this increased viewing of hardcore porn is having, primarily on men. The Times on Wednesday reported on a study by Edinburgh University’s Childlight child safety institute, which surveyed 4,500 men from the UK, USA and Australia. More than one in 20 said that they would have sexual contact with a child between the age of 10 and 14 if they knew that it would be kept a secret. Among British men, 1.6% said that they would definitely have sexual contact with a 12 to 14 year-old if it stayed a secret, with 2.6% saying that they would be very likely to. An additional 7% admitted to having sexual feelings toward children, which they did not act upon. The proportion was higher in Australia and higher still in America.
According to the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, one in four girls and one in five boys have been sexually abused, with half of them abused by their 13th birthday. I do not know the figures for the UK but I sincerely hope they are not that high. Dr Michael Salter, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales—which co-authored the report with the University of Edinburgh—stated that the rise in online child offences is part of a global trend over the past two decades, adding that an unregulated online environment is a direct cause of sexual offending against children. He said:
“Men who are sexually offending against children are watching a lot more online pornography but also the type of content they are consuming is very deviant … It is more likely to be violent. It’s more likely to be forceful”.
A report commissioned by Miriam Cates MP and the New Social Covenant Unit, What is Being Taught in Relationships and Sex Education in Our Schools?, called for a government review. It highlights how things have changed since the guidance produced by the DfE in 2000, which stated:
“What is sex and relationship education? It is lifelong learning about physical, moral and emotional development. It is about the understanding of the importance of marriage for family life, stable and loving relationships, respect, love and care. It is also about the teaching of sex, sexuality, and sexual health. It is not about the promotion of sexual orientation or sexual activity—this would be inappropriate teaching”.
I think we could all feel very happy with that definition of RSE. However, this statement does not feature in the latest 2019 RSE guidance, which contains advice that is not compatible with the definition. Indeed, now, there is strong evidence that actors with a radical ideological position on sex, gender and sexuality are monopolising the RSE third sector, as my noble friend Lord Jackson said.
I shall give your Lordships a couple of examples. My noble friend mentioned Jessica Ringrose from UCL and Amelia Jenkinson, the former CEO of the School of Sexuality Education. He also mentioned the article “Play-Doh Vulvas and Felt Tip Dick Pics”. If your Lordships will indulge me, children aged between 12 and 16 were encouraged to draw sexually explicit images, including hands masturbating erections with the words “Wanna see me cum?” and “Now it’s your turn—ride me”. The academics went on to record that
“there was a sense of solidarity”—
that is ironic—
“amongst the girls … as they discussed the pictures they had received from ‘random old men’ on Snapchat”.
Is that really acceptable? Certainly not, particularly for the 12 and 13 year-olds in the classes who were needlessly exposed to this sort of thing having mercifully never experienced it in real life.
It gets worse. Another provider, Split Banana, gives lessons to children of the same age in which it describes four types of sex: penis-in-vagina sex, oral sex, masturbation and anal sex. Its lessons created an equivalence for heterosexual couples between anal and vaginal sex, which has the potential to mislead children about whether anal sex is a universally enacted, desirable or safe sexual practice.
I leave noble Lords with this. In preparation for this debate, I asked my own children at what age they had first been exposed to pornography and how it had affected them. Only one was happy to answer: when she was 12, looking at an iPod Touch Christmas present with her male cousin of the same age. Her reaction? She threw the iPod across the room. She was terrified.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome and thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House today. I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register on autism as, unsurprisingly, it is that subject that I wish to address today. I will focus on the safeguarding of autistic children in the education system. This will include both those with an autism diagnosis and those as yet undiagnosed, for whom an assessment and a subsequent plan to support the child through education—as outlined in the Autism Act 2009—are often needed right through their transition from childhood into adulthood.
In her representation of today’s debate, my noble friend Lady Jenkin outlined in some detail the Government’s definition of safeguarding in the context of education, so I will not repeat it now. However, I emphasise—not for the first time—that autism is a spectrum and the needs of an individual should be assessed by those with significant training and qualifications in autism and neurodiversity. Autism is different. It is a communication disorder. Both physical and mental bullying are common. The individual’s development of a sense of self can be slower than that of their peer group. Idiosyncratic behaviour, such as echolalia, can attract unwanted hostile responses. Timely assessment, diagnosis and support are essential.
Schools will struggle to carry out their statutory duties in respect of safeguarding until there is rapid improvement in this process. Research from Pro Bono Economics suggests that, in 2021-22, £60 million of public money was wasted on special educational needs and disability tribunals brought by people who had come forward with an assessment or not received one at all. Had those tribunals not responded to the request or rejected them, they could have financed around 9,960 places in SEN units in mainstream schools each year with the money wasted. Even when people get an assessment, many have to go to tribunals to get the support that their child desperately needs.
Ofsted, the schools inspectorate for England, describes what good safeguarding in an education setting should look like:
“It is about the culture a school creates to keep its pupils safe so that they can benefit fully … A positive and open safeguarding culture puts pupils’ interests first. Everyone who works with children is vigilant in identifying risks and reporting concerns. It is also about working openly and transparently with parents, local authorities and other stakeholders to protect pupils from serious harm, both online and offline and about taking prompt and proportionate action”.
I, too, will make some comment, or place some interest, on the question of gender. The Cass review, in particular, demonstrated the shockingly disproportionate high number of autistic children seen by the Tavistock and Portman gender identity service. I emphasise this: 48% of referrals to that clinic had autistic characteristics. Yet, in the course of its work, nobody questioned why. What is going on here?
I am pleased to see that the Department of Health is addressing the Cass review, and I am grateful to the Minister at the Dispatch Box today for the time she has allowed me, in private, to outline to her some of the similar problems experienced in some state schools for autistic children, using information given to me directly by the parents of those children. As I discussed with my noble friend, particularly as far as girls are concerned, parents have been blocked out from what has been going on in schools and has affected their own children. These have included things such as breast binding, initiated by teachers without the parents’ knowledge; referral to doctors, who have prescribed puberty blockers; and things such as changing pupils’ names. Some of these issues have led to court cases. But we know that pubescent teenage girls sometimes struggle with the changes in their bodies and peer pressure to conform—how much more so for autistic girls, who have found these complex issues so much more difficult.
I will try to shed some light on this with a quote, from a post on autism and gender identity written by Jane Galloway. She has suggested that:
“With such a huge number of autistic girls identifying as trans, whether that be as a boy or as non-binary (a feeling that they identify as neither male or female, although they will biologically be female or in rare cases, intersex) we have to ask questions about why this is.
Growing up in a culture soaked by internet porn, in which women are expected to conform to highly sexualised, performative femininity, young girls are often facing impossible beauty standards. They are seeing a world of toxic gender roles that speak neither for nor to them”—
that also applies to young lesbians as well as autistic girls. She goes on to say that
“the temptation to reject it outright … is overwhelming. Add in the differentiated theory of mind”,
documented by Francesca Happé many years ago, which throws light on the way the autistic mind works, and it is no wonder that, for
“girls who are autistic … many of them will assume ‘Because I am not this, I must … be that’”.
Perhaps that question should have been asked at the Tavistock clinic. It is certainly a question that I hope we will ask in education, as far as autistic girls in classrooms are concerned. In the guidelines that are to come, I hope my noble friend will be able to influence that.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for her “canter around the issues”, as she put it to me the other day. I have always believed that there are very many ways of being human and that we should bear that in mind when dealing with anyone who travels a different path from our own and treat all with equal respect. This applies to gender identity and sexuality as well as every other characteristic. This principle underlies my reaction to the issues raised by many in this debate.
When considering how to go about helping and protecting children as they find their way through life, I always go back to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, of course, the “best interests of the child” principle, enshrined in UK law thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone.
I am quite surprised that I am the first person in this debate to mention the convention. Relevant to this debate is recommendation number 25 in the concluding observations published in June this year by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in its latest report on the UK’s compliance with the convention to which we are signed up:
“Noting the decision taken by the State party to prevent the implementation of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Committee recommends that the State party recognize the right to identity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children and put in place measures to ensure that all adolescents can enjoy their freedom of expression and respect for their physical and psychological integrity, gender identity and emerging autonomy. In this context, the State party should ensure that any decisions regarding systems of gender recognition for children are taken in close consultation with transgender children and in line with children’s rights, including the right to be heard and the right to identity, in accordance with their evolving capacities, with free and informed consent and appropriate safeguards.”
In the light of our long-standing commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which the committee evaluates our compliance every five years, will the UK Government take notice of that recommendation? It is relevant to how schools respond when children express any kind of gender distress, uncertainty or lack of conformity with others. It means that schools must listen to children, consult them about how they wish to live and, as far as possible, ensure they are treated in the way that makes them feel most comfortable. When this is done, it helps avoid distress and mental health problems in the future.
The committee further recommended that we urgently address the long waiting times faced by transgender and gender-questioning children in accessing specialist healthcare services, including for mental health, to improve the quality of such services and ensure that the views of such children are taken into account in all decisions affecting their treatment.
I will now use the opportunity of this debate to turn to a fundamental safeguarding concern of mine, which is to ensure that sexual abuse of children is never ignored or brushed under the carpet. That can happen only when there is a legal duty to report what is known or suspected—a deterrent from allowing fears of reputational damage to make a person keep silent. When a child has the courage to disclose sexual abuse, he or she just wants it to stop. If that does not happen, the child, as well as continuing to be abused, loses all trust in those in whom they have confided.
In respect of this, I had great hopes of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA, and it has not disappointed. However, when I look at the Government’s response, I do not believe they have responded appropriately. IICSA’s recommendation 13, “Mandatory reporting”, says:
“The Inquiry recommends that the UK government and Welsh Government introduce legislation which places certain individuals—‘mandated reporters’—under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse where they: receive a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or witness a child being sexually abused; or observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse.
The following persons should be designated ‘mandated reporters’: any person working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended); any person working in a position of trust (as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended); and police officers.
For the purposes of mandatory reporting, ‘child sexual abuse’ should be interpreted as any act that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the alleged victim is a child under the age of 18”.
There follow exceptions, which I will not go into.
IICSA then says:
“Where the child is under the age of 13, a report must always be made. Reports should be made to either local authority children’s social care or the police as soon as is practicable”.
Here is the crucial bit:
“It should be a criminal offence for mandated reporters to fail to report child sexual abuse where they: are in receipt of a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or witness a child being sexually abused”.
That is what I was hoping for.
Initially, the government response sounded hopeful. It said:
“We accept the need for mandatory reporting; the government has agreed to implement a mandatory reporting regime for child sexual abuse which will be informed by a full public consultation”.
It further says:
“We agree that implementing a new mandatory reporting duty could improve the protection and safeguarding of children, as well as holding to account those who fail in their responsibilities. A successful reporting regime will ensure that the individuals and organisations with a responsibility to safeguard children provide a robust and consistent response to abuse, putting the needs of children first”.
The consultation outcome was published in May and the Government published their guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, in September. Having read this guidance carefully, I would say that it is, on the whole, excellent—well-written, clear and comprehensive—but it lacks one thing and has one inconsistency, which is crucial. I will come to that in a minute.
The guidance says:
“If staff have any concerns about a child’s welfare, they should act on them immediately … follow their own organisation’s child protection policy and speak to the designated safeguarding lead (or deputy)”.
It then outlines the actions which can be taken, including making a referral to statutory services. It tells staff what to do if the DSL is not available, including
“speaking to a member of the senior leadership team and/or … local authority children’s social care … Staff should not assume a colleague, or another professional will take action and share information that might be critical in keeping children safe”.
It gives criteria for that.
It then goes on to describe what local authorities should do. I was pleased to read that it makes it clear that the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK general data protection regulations do not prevent the sharing of information for the purposes of keeping children safe and promoting their welfare. It says:
“Fears about sharing information must not be allowed to stand in the way of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.”
So far so excellent. However, I noted the difference between all this advice and the section on female genital mutilation:
“Whilst all staff should speak to the designated safeguarding lead (or a deputy) with regard to any concerns about female genital mutilation (FGM), there is a specific legal duty on teachers. If a teacher, in the course of their work in the profession, discovers that an act of FGM appears to have been carried out on a girl under the age of 18, the teacher must report this to the police.”
In other words, it is against the law to fail to report that a child has been physically mutilated, but it is not against the law to fail to report or act on the knowledge or suspicion that a child has been sexually abused—and that is much more widespread. I wonder if the Minister can tell me: what is the difference?
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I associate myself with much of what she said, including on the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I would also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on securing this debate on such an important subject: safeguarding children in schools. Safeguarding has a set of specific meanings regarding the protection of children and vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect and harm. Although I am no longer a working teacher—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who made many excellent points in his speech—I did do 35 years at the chalk face, so I know a little bit about it.
The Times Educational Supplement recently identified seven key safeguarding areas that schools should be concerned with now, as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. On child sexual abuse material, a recent report from the Internet Watch Foundation found a 64% increase in reported webpages containing confirmed child sexual abuse images in 2021 compared to 2020. Almost seven out of 10 instances involved children aged 11 to 13, and 97% of the images were of girls. It is absolutely vital that everyone working with children is aware of the online risks, has appropriate training and ensures that children have suitable routes to support and reporting.
Next, there is child-on-child sexual violence and harassment. The excellent organisation Girlguiding released figures in 2021 stating that two thirds of their members who were girls and young women experienced sexual harassment in school. Schools should maintain the attitude that such behaviours could already be taking place, and foster environments where children feel safe and empowered to report abuse.
Turning to extremism and radicalisation, the number of children arrested in relation to terrorism offences has reached its highest level since records began. According to the Home Office, 16% of arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 in the year ending 2022 were of people aged under 18. Young people are particularly vulnerable to radicalisation, and schools need to be aware of key factors: social isolation, precarious emotional ties, and violent peers. Labour have called on the Government to provide an update to the counter-extremism strategy because it has not been updated since 2015. Although the Prevent strategy has been updated, there is a need for a wider counter-extremism strategy.
A growing issue, one that we have talked about many times in this place, is domestic abuse. It has been reported that 62% of children living with domestic abuse are directly harmed by the perpetrator of the abuse, while one in five children has lived with an adult perpetrating domestic abuse. By witnessing the abuse of others, or by being harmed directly, children may experience a wide range of severe and long-lasting effects. All school staff must follow their school’s child protection policy and contact the police if they suspect that a child is in danger.
A term that has become increasingly used to describe safeguarding issues but did not exist when I began my teaching career in Brixton in the 1980s is “adverse childhood experiences”, usually shortened now to the acronym ACEs. These include a range of experiences, such as being the victim of abuse or neglect, parental abandonment through separation or divorce, or having a parent with a mental health condition. Several studies have shown that if a person has experienced four or more ACEs, compared to someone with none, they are more likely to experience poor health and well-being into adulthood.
Another safeguarding issue is trauma, which can occur when a child witnesses or experiences overwhelming negative events. Developmental trauma includes children who are neglected, abused or forced to live with family violence, or who experience high parental conflict. It affects all aspects of a child’s development, including the brain, body, emotions, memory, relationships, learning and behaviour. Schools provide the opportunity for children to experience safe and predictable environments and to interact with staff and peers with kindness and compassion.
Another issue that has grown hugely in the past decade, particularly during and after the experiences of the pandemic, is mental health issues in children and young people. In July 2021, the NHS identified one in six children aged five to 16 as having a probable mental health problem—an increase from one in nine in 2017 and equivalent to about five children in every classroom. Schools should help children develop good relationships and build resilience when dealing with setbacks, and all staff need to be given training on common issues, including anxiety, low mood and depression, self-harm and conduct disorders. The Government’s education plans aim for mental health support for children in only half of their schools, but Labour’s plan is to ensure specialist mental health support in every school to stop problems before they escalate.
Five years ago, the Government committed to producing guidance for schools to support children who are questioning their gender. There are a range of views about how best to support young people, and we have heard them here today, but the clear consensus is that guidance is needed, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Morris and, in fuller detail, by my noble friend Lord Cashman. I support many of his comments, particularly his observations about his personal experience, of which he spoke most movingly.
During the passage of the Schools Bill, which did not complete its journey through the legislative process, one area that should have made it into law was the provision of a home-school register, a long overdue addition to the safeguarding measures. During the passage of the Bill, I spoke about the increasing number of children receiving an education outside the classroom and how they could be missing out on the benefits a school environment brings. Safeguards are vital in helping to make sure children are not being taught in unsuitable or dangerous environments. Allied to the register is the large numbers of children who have not returned to school since the pandemic: last year more than one in five children were persistently absent.
It was therefore quite disturbing to hear on Tuesday from a Permanent Secretary in the Department for Education that Downing Street blocked its legislating for a register of children not in school. This Government have consistently failed to get them back to school, even though every day of learning matters. It appears that the block on this legislation came directly from No. 10, despite cross-party support and a request from the DfE.
I can clearly state that the next Labour Government will legislate to identify children out of school, and ensure that families and schools get the support needed to guarantee an excellent education for every child and seek to safeguard those children and young people. We will bring an annual safeguarding review in for schools in England, as concerns about children’s safety and well-being are being missed due to infrequent Ofsted inspections. There has been a promising, positive reaction to this idea of annual safeguarding reviews and we will consult closely with the education community. Safeguarding is the number one priority of everyone in education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for securing this debate on the importance of safeguarding in our schools. Your Lordships have set me an impossible task in trying to address all of points raised; anything I am unable to cover in the time available I will follow up in writing. We have heard some very powerful and reflective speeches from across this House, and I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this important debate. As we heard, safeguarding our children both inside and outside of school is absolutely crucial. As the world evolves, so do the safeguarding risks our children face, and the challenges our schools face evolve with them.
As your Lordships are aware, all schools and colleges in England must have regard to the statutory safeguarding guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education. The guidance sets out the policies and procedures that teachers and leaders should follow to protect children while in school. Our schools and colleges are also part of a wider framework of safeguarding that includes local authorities, health and the police, each of whom have statutory duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility and everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play in identifying concerns, sharing information and taking prompt action.
Given the focus of the debate, I start my remarks on issues around the Government’s gender questioning guidance, but I aim to cover some of the wider points raised. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who I think was the first to raise this subject, for her tone and reflections on how much has improved over many years. I know she would agree that we owe a lot to every teacher for their part in that.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of schools supporting the social transition of pupils who are questioning their gender, including my noble friends Lord Farmer, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Shinkwin—I was sorry to hear his remarks on the re-emergence of discrimination towards disabled people. I also thank my noble friend Lord Roberts for his historical perspective on these issues. Obviously, how we respond to such requests is an important safeguarding and welfare question. As your Lordships pointed out, recent years have seen a large increase in children seeking support. The number of children seeking medical support for gender dysphoria was 20 times higher in 2022 than a decade ago. Schools are not taking decisions about clinical support, of course, but that does not mean that decisions about social transition can be taken lightly. Actions such as changing names and pronouns are serious and can have a wider impact.
The Cass review highlighted the importance of safeguarding, stressing that social transition
“is not a neutral act”,
and that
“it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning”.
But the review also says that not supporting social transition is also not a neutral act. There is not clear information on the long-term effects. That is the background to the guidance that we have been working on carefully and will be publishing for consultation shortly. I am not going to pre-empt that publication in this debate, but I can reassure noble Lords that the issues raised today are very much being considered in its development.
Safeguarding and welfare will be absolutely central to decisions taken by schools, considering the implications for individuals and for the wider school. In that context, biological sex is vitally important. Single-sex spaces, as raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton, need to be maintained; school sport, which was touched on by my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wrottesley, must be safe and fair. It is also vital that parents should be engaged in decision-making about their children. That is a principle at the heart of other school processes, such as deciding on support for children with special educational needs, and it is just as important here. Parents are the ones who know their children and their wider lives best. I have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about keeping this information from parents, except in absolutely exceptional circumstances.
I should also emphasise that we will be holding a consultation on the guidance. While I am confident that we have considered the issues raised, we really do want to gather a full range of views. I hope that your Lordships and members of the public will respond to let us know the extent to which it clarifies these issues for schools because, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and others, there is a central point about having certainty and clarity for teachers on how they should respond to these very sensitive and difficult issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, asked me to clarify that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. Just to be clear, the guidance will aim to support and protect all pupils, including those who are questioning their gender. One of the key principles to have guided this work is that schools and colleges should be respectful and tolerant places, where children are treated with compassion and understanding, and where bullying is never tolerated. But at the heart of this guidance is child safety and well-being; as I mentioned, the interim Cass report confirmed that we need better information about the long-term implications of social transition, which is why the Government are advocating a cautious approach.
My noble friend Lady Browning talked about the gap in evidence in relation to girls with autism, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, asked that we would be driven by verifiable evidence. One of the challenges in this area is that there is insufficient evidence—I hope the noble Lord would accept that—and even less uncontested evidence. It is important that we work to fill that gap, but at the heart of the guidance will be the best interests of the child and clarity for teachers and other staff in schools about how to respond.
Going more broadly to the issues in the RSHE curriculum, noble Lords have raised the issue of sharing those materials with parents. We have brought forward the review of the RSHE curriculum. As I think your Lordships know, we have appointed an independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on the introduction of age limits on teaching sensitive topics. The Secretary of State wrote to all schools in October, clarifying how they can share materials with parents while remaining within copyright law. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough raised this; I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the complaints he has been made aware of and how the department has responded.
He also mentioned that the School of Sexuality Education was a contributor to the department’s guidance. Can he point me to that reference? We have checked our list of expert contributors and it does not appear to be on it. If he has evidence of that, clearly I will happily take that away if he could write to me.
The Secretary of State’s letter also set out:
“The copyright act allows schools to copy resources proportionately, for the purposes of explaining to parents what is being taught”,
including
“via a ‘parent portal’ or … a presentation”.
The letter was also clear that, where parents cannot access the parent portal or presentation,
“schools may provide copies of materials to parents to take home on request, providing parents agree to a … statement that they will not copy the content or share it further except as authorised under copyright law”.
The points made in this letter will be reflected in the updated statutory RSHE guidance, which schools will have a duty to have regard to.
My noble friend Lady Jenkin asked about the timing of the publication of the guidance and the consultation. We will be consulting on it in the near future and expect the guidance to be published in 2024, with the consultation being launched early in the new year.
I turn to online safety in schools. My noble friend Lord Leicester and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the issue of children’s access to pornography, which obviously is a serious concern, for all the reasons that your Lordships have set out this afternoon. We have updated the Teaching Online Safety in Schools non-statutory guidance this year, which covers how to teach all aspects of internet safety, not just those relating to relationships, sex and health.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Secretary of State has committed to introducing a ban on mobile phones in schools. My noble friend Lady Jenkin asked about the timing. We expect to provide more information on that early in 2024 and, obviously and importantly, the Online Safety Act takes a zero-tolerance approach to the protection of children and will ensure that platforms are held responsible for the content that they host.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, also raised the question of whether schools would return to the days of Section 28. I can reassure the noble Lord that that is absolutely not the case. The RSHE guidance is clear that pupils should be taught LGBT content at an age-appropriate point in their education and that they should know about protected characteristics within the Equality Act. However, we need to provide clarity for schools and colleges and, importantly, reassurance for parents on the content that is being taught.
I turn to mandatory reporting, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Walmsley, I think there might have been a slight confusion in relation to the Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, which obviously has been published and therefore predates the Government’s publication in relation to the child sexual abuse mandatory reporting duty that we have committed to introduce.
We have committed to working across government to consult on how this will work in practice, sensitive to the wider impact of this and burdens, and will work through whether action is needed at an organisational or individual level, or indeed at both. In developing our proposals, which we have consulted on, we looked carefully at the experiences of other countries that have mandatory reporting, including Australia and Canada, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked.
My noble friend Lady Jenkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the very important issue of children’s mental health. Obviously, that is a real priority and concern. We are investing an additional £2.3 billion a year in NHS mental health services by March 2024, which will help 345,000 more children and young people to access mental health support. We are also committed to supporting schools with our offer of senior mental health lead training, which has already been accessed by over 14,000 settings.
Of course, the other side of mental health is resilience and well-being and I will pick up on the comments of my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wrottesley about the importance of sport and PE, and indeed wider extracurricular activities, in building children’s and young people’s resilience.
I turn to the issues of extremism in relation to safeguarding schools, raised by my noble friend Lord Farmer and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. The House may be aware that I and fellow Ministers have had several discussions with faith and non-faith primary and secondary school providers, particularly in relation to the impact of the conflict between Israel and Hamas on both Muslim and Jewish and other students in a range of settings. As a result of these meetings, we have agreed to prioritise actions to tackle inappropriate misinformation and disinformation about the conflict, particularly on social media, and we will be issuing guidance to teachers and schools on promoting tolerance and addressing racism and anti-Semitism. We have also updated our Educate Against Hate website, which provides resources and lesson plans for schools to support them in holding these very sensitive discussions.
My noble friend raised the issue of protests held in school hours. The Government are absolutely clear that it is not acceptable that children are not in school because of political activism. I am aware, having spoken to head teachers, how much pressure they are under from some parents, and indeed some colleagues, to allow children out of school. I think it is very important, as a Government, that we are clear that we support them and that they are doing the right thing to make sure that their children are in school.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, raised some concerns about Prevent. I can only disagree with the vast majority of what she said. Prevent plays an important part in safeguarding. Going back to the opening comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about how far we have come, we are able to intervene much earlier, which any parent of a child at risk of being drawn into extremist ideologies, whether far right or otherwise, would be grateful for. We feel that it is a really important plank and part of that progress.
I want to say a word about attendance, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others. There is always a competition to be the most important thing, but this is certainly one of the most important things for us in the department: partly because of the issue of safety—children are safest when they are in school; partly because of the impact on their education, and we are very grateful to the Children’s Commissioner for her recent work on the impact on children’s attainment of missing school; and also because we know that children become invisible to all services when they are not in school. School is such an important place.
It was genuinely moving to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talk about the care that teachers take, spotting how children behave in the playground, the corridor and the classroom, and that is where we need them to be.
My noble friend asked me about whether we would consider schools and academy trusts issuing fixed penalty notices for poor attendance. Obviously, schools can ask local authorities to issue those fines and local authorities have the legal responsibility to do that. If my noble friend has examples where that is not working well in practice, I would be happy to take those up.
I am out of time, but I will say quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we do support the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation of mandatory participation in the attendance data; some 87% of schools send in their data voluntarily. I thank my noble friend Lady Bottomley for her incredible work on the Children Act, which has been such an extraordinary influence in this country, and to share her recognition of the work of social workers, health visitors and teachers.
In closing, I thank again all noble Lords who spoke on this debate and, on your Lordships’ behalf, all those who work in schools, teachers in particular, for their work every hour, every day, to keep our children safe.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, we have had rather more than just a canter round these issues. We have had some very powerful contributions from many noble Lords, with a wide variety of focuses and expertise. Like my noble friend the Minister, I was interested to hear from my noble friend Lady Bottomley about the background and history of the Children Act and the importance of consistency. We have all mentioned the lived experience, as it is now called, at the coalface, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for bringing the importance of the guidance for gender questioning, and to hear the response from the Minister. She has covered all the issues: sports; single-sex spaces; pornography; RHSE materials and parental access; the understanding of autism—particularly of girls; sexual abuse; the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, as a historian; and gender distress and how to deal with it in the school environment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for advertising the debate so widely on social media. We are all grateful to the Minister for her typically thoughtful response to the debate.
UK-Rwanda Partnership
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, here we are—emergency legislation in three weeks, emergency press conferences and an emergency reshuffle. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, if he is happy to be taking this legislation through your Lordships’ House. A Home Secretary has gone, saying the Bill does not go far enough; the noble Lord’s colleague—until 24 hours ago—resigned, saying it is doomed, describing it as
“a triumph of hope over experience”;
and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is deafening with his silence. How on earth have we reached the situation where three Home Secretaries have gone to Rwanda but not a single asylum seeker? Which side of the open warfare in our governing party is the noble Lord on? Is it “too soft”, “too draconian”, “it won’t work” or even “who knows”, because I do not know and I do not think anyone else does? The way we are going, the former Home Secretary may be right that the Government are heading into an even more catastrophic situation.
This is the third Bill on channel crossings in two years. Why will this one work? How much have we spent so far on all of this, and how much is the budget? The Government refuse to say. It is apparently supposed to be published in an annual statement. Should we not be given some figures now on the anticipated budget?
Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government ended up being lectured by the Rwandan Government about not breaking international law, with the Prime Minister even telling the 1922 Committee last night that this is why he could not go further by not leaving the ECHR because the Rwandan Government would not have it? Can the noble Lord detail the exact legal position enshrined in the Bill with respect to the Human Rights Act and the ECHR? Can the noble Lord confirm that it is still the case under this legislation that an individual will still be able to challenge an asylum decision in the courts?
Given the central importance the Government have attached to Rwanda, can the noble Lord give us some numbers? Is all of this for a scheme that will likely cover less than 1% of the people who arrive here to claim asylum? How many people are going to be covered? The treaty itself says that capacity is limited in Rwanda, with the Court of Appeal saying it would be 100, and that talk of thousands was political hyperbole. Can the noble Lord inform your Lordships how many it is?
On the BBC this morning, no Minister could be found for the “Today” programme. I do not know whether they asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but certainly nobody was available for the 8.10 flagship interview. Perhaps it is a good job. The former Home Secretary was available, by the way, and appeared and gave her views very forcefully. On BBC TV, the Cabinet Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, was asked if Britain could end up receiving Rwandan refugees before it deports anyone there. He answered, “I honestly do not know the answer to that question”. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us.
We need to clear the asylum backlog, go after criminal gangs, tackle problems at the source and come to new arrangements with our European neighbours. Does the noble Lord agree with me that, on this issue of the channel crossings that we all wish to see resolved, we have public policy chaos and a Government ripped apart by division? The current Home Secretary says that Rwanda is not the be-all and end-all. Well, that is not what the reality is for the noble Lord. He will be faced with arguments, including, I suggest, in your Lordships’ House, around whether we have a full-fat solution, a semi-skimmed solution or a skimmed solution. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us which brand of milk he thinks the treaty should actually be.
The country deserves better than this from its Government. The people deserve better than this. Real problems deserve real solutions based on competence, human rights and respect for international law. The noble Lord has had to come today to defend a policy rubbished by his boss, as we know. We have utter chaos, and that is in no one’s interests. This morning, we had a Prime Minister pleading for understanding and support, coming up with the brilliant policy initiative that the way to solve this problem is not to have one Minister but two: one for legal migration and one for illegal migration. I wonder which member of the No. 10 Policy Unit came up with that idea, and whether the noble Lord himself was consulted about that as a solution to the problems.
The plain fact of the matter is that this is real chaos. We have a Rwanda policy that, in the words of their own former Ministers, is doomed and unworkable. Our nation needs and deserves better. There is no sign this Government will be able to deliver it.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that this is a mess. It is a mess in which the Government have written themselves a project so bad that we are ending up with an ineffective, expensive and unworkable policy which lacks in human decency. What we should be receiving is a Government that give us a workable solution which is speedy, effective and humane. Adding to that, and worse, it is now pitting the Government against our courts. This is a dangerous path to follow. It risks our freedoms and liberties under the law against excessive overreach from Government.
Disapplying legal protections to a specific group is a threat to anyone who may need the protection of a judge in future. Human Rights are universal: either you have them or you do not. If you take them away from one group of people, they are no longer human rights; they are rights for some humans. It is a dangerous, slippery slope when the Government seek to disapply them to asylum seekers. Which group of people out of favour with the Government will be next?
In effect, we are being asked to believe that the facts established by the Supreme Court are now wrong—in essence, that black is white. When the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Rwanda was unsafe, based on a whole range of facts, but said that at some stage in future things might be different, there was no expectation that this could be achieved by last Monday. One simple line taken from the Government’s Statement proves just that:
“Rwanda will introduce a strengthened end-to-end asylum system”.
It does not say “has introduced” but “will introduce”. The fact will be demonstrated by seeing a new system in place, not simply by producing a statement of expectation. The Statement is simply incorrect in stating that these Supreme Court matters are “concerns”. They are not; they are facts. That is what our highest court ruled on: the facts. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of facts?
Let us have some facts. By when, exactly, will Rwanda have introduced a strengthened end-to-end asylum system that meets all the international treaties, laws and rules to which the United Kingdom has signed up? What will be the cost of the creation of a new, specialist asylum appeals tribunal in Rwanda and who will meet it? What will be the ongoing annual costs of the running of the tribunal, including the salaries of judges from across the Commonwealth?
How much are the UK Government setting aside for paying for the provision of legal services to asylum seekers in Rwanda? How will the judges be selected? How can we be assured that the judges will be mindful and live to the protection rights of people with protected characteristics—for example, sexual orientation, women who have experienced gender-based violence, religion or race?
There is an alternative to this unworkable, expensive and inhumane policy. We need an effective asylum system where decisions are made swiftly and accurately. We need effective, humane removals of those whose asylum claim is refused. We need a range of workable safe routes so that people who need protection can get to the United Kingdom safely, including an enhanced resettlement scheme, a humanitarian visa and a more effective family reunion route. There is an alternative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, if there is an alternative, I did not hear one.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked whether I was invited on to the “Today” programme. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I was not. And I was not necessarily as disappointed as the noble Lord was.
The partnership with Rwanda is now set out in a new treaty, which is binding in international law. It has been agreed by the UK and the Government of Rwanda and was worked on by both parties with close care and attention. It was laid in Parliament yesterday. The treaty, crucially, addresses the conclusion from the Supreme Court on the risk of refoulement to those relocated to Rwanda. I will come back to the Supreme Court decision soon.
The treaty is binding in international law, and it makes it clear that Rwanda will not remove any individuals relocated there to a third country, ensuring that there is no risk of onward refoulement. Relocated individuals will be given safety and support in Rwanda. Those not granted refugee status or humanitarian protection will instead be granted permanent residence so that they are able to stay and integrate into Rwandan society. Once individuals are relocated to Rwanda, they will have their needs looked after while their claims are being considered, including having safe and clean accommodation, food, healthcare and amenities. People are free to leave if they wish and will not be detained.
Far from pitting us against the courts—as the noble Lord, Lord German, alleged—we are responding to them. The treaty does not override the Supreme Court’s judgment; rather, it responds and adapts its key findings to ensure that the policy can go ahead.
The court recognised that changes might be delivered in future which would address the issues that it raised. These are those changes. We believe they address the Supreme Court’s concerns and now aim to move forward with the policy and help put an end to illegal migration. I remind noble Lords that the Supreme Court’s judgment was based on a very specific time in the past; a lot has been done since.
The new treaty—again, this goes to some of the facts that the noble Lord, Lord German, was asking for—also sets out how the independent monitoring committee has been enhanced and will play an important role. It will ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to. It will also, in practice, prove that the monitoring committee has the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring and will have unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports. It will monitor the entire relocation process from the beginning, including initial screening, to relocation and settlement in Rwanda.
The monitoring committee will be responsible for developing a system to enable relocated individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints directly to the committee. These can be regarding any concerns about the treatment of individuals or alleged failure to comply with the obligations in the treaty. This will provide an additional layer of assurance and ensure that the asylum decision-making process is robust and identifies any issues at an early stage. The monitoring committee will undertake real-time monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months.
The treaty will also strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system through a new appeal body under its courts system—the noble Lord, Lord German, asked me about that. That will have Rwandan and UK Commonwealth co-presidents, all decisions will be reviewed by the co-presidents and they will be responsible for selecting and appointing the ordinary judges, who can be a mix of nationalities. There will be an independent expert on asylum and humanitarian protection law, providing advice to the panel before any appeal is determined for the first 12 months.
Our aim must be to deter the dangerous and illegal journeys to the UK and disrupt the business models of the criminal gangs. I think we can all agree on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about costs. I remind the House that the costs here are massive—and they are not just in money but also in lives. We saw an example of that in French waters only a couple of weeks ago. So far, however, the UK has provided Rwanda with an initial £140 million to assist in the economic development of Rwanda and with upfront operational costs. We will not be providing a running commentary on other costs. Those focusing solely on the costs of this partnership are missing the point. It is incredibly frustrating for British people and the taxpayer to spend billions of pounds to house illegal migrants in hotels. Criminal smuggling gangs are continuing to turn a profit using small boats, and we must bring an end to that.
The Prime Minister, far from pleading, was explaining this morning, and he explained that there is a narrow exception
“if you can prove with credible and compelling evidence that you specifically have a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm”.
We have to recognise that as a matter of law, and if we did not we would undermine the treaty we have just signed with Rwanda—as the Rwandans themselves made clear.
To conclude, the numbers to this scheme are uncapped, so I cannot give any estimation of how many may end up in Rwanda. To reassure the noble Lord, Coaker, I am on the side of the Government. I drink my coffee black and do not like milk very much. He will also be very reassured to hear that my happiness is abundant.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the seventh paragraph of the Statement that was delivered in another place yesterday says that the Government will introduce legislation next week
“to give effect to the judgment of Parliament that Rwanda is a safe country, notwithstanding UK law or any interpretation of international law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/23; col. 433.]
Can my noble friend explain precisely what that means? Will he also share with the House how we will measure success, and whether we expect to have 100 people sent to Rwanda next year, or 200, or 1,000? Could he give us a rough idea of what figure the Government expect to reach to be able to achieve success?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I point my noble friend to Clause 1(6) of the Bill, which actually outlines what international law means; it is a non-exhaustive list. Regarding how we will judge success, I think we are already seeing some. As the Prime Minister mentioned this morning, a number of crossings have been deterred, and the numbers are down on last year. Success in its entirety will involve putting the criminal gangs out of business once and for all.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I apologise for being slightly delayed for the consideration of this Statement. My understanding is that the Bill disapplies certain sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow public authorities to operate in a way that is incompatible with international obligations. If that is the case, surely that means disregarding the human rights of people seeking asylum, and I struggle to see what human rights can mean if they are not conferred on all human beings. I will be grateful if the Minister can comment on that. I will also be grateful—as would all of us on these Benches—for some clarification of the status of tier 2 ministry religion visas, in light of the new financial threshold. Perhaps it would be possible to have a meeting about that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Regarding the second point, that question was asked the other day in a different context, and I suggested to the right reverend Prelate who asked me that perhaps the Church should look at paying its vicars more. After all, it is one of the more sizeable landowners in this country and can probably afford it. The Human Rights Act is disapplied in a couple of very specific circumstances, which are outlined in Clause 3 of the Bill.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I will follow up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Setting aside the arguments about the law and human rights and all that, the basic justification for this policy is that the Rwanda scheme would offer a deterrent which is necessary to stop channel crossings. It is therefore of fundamental importance to the argument to know how many people can be sent to Rwanda under the scheme. The Court of Appeal said that 100 were allowed. Will the Minister therefore contradict the Court of Appeal and tell us the real number, and will he tell Conservative Central Office to stop putting out propaganda that thousands of people can be sent to Rwanda, which is just ridiculous?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
From the noble Lord’s last remark, it sounds like he has answered his own question. However, as I said in my opening remarks, the numbers are uncapped. I do not know the context of the Court of Appeal judgment in this regard, so I cannot comment on that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have two questions for the Minister. First, Article 19 of the treaty says that we are under an obligation to take a “portion”—an odd word—of Rwanda’s “most vulnerable refugees”. A two-way flow of people is envisaged, some going from here to Rwanda, some going from Rwanda to here. Can the Minister give us a forecast ballpark figure of how many Rwandans are coming? Secondly, he will remember that last year the State Department found the Government of Rwanda guilty of arbitrary murder, torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading punishments, arbitrary detention in harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, carrying out murders and kidnappings abroad and harassing domestic and international human rights groups. Our Bill requires us to deem Rwanda a safe country. Will he tell us why the State Department is wrong?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In answer to the first part of the noble Lord’s question, Section 19 of the treaty indeed says that the UK will resettle refugees from Rwanda to the UK. This is not new; it was also set out in the MoU. As I have mentioned before from this Dispatch Box, Rwanda currently hosts and provides for around 130,000 refugees from across the region, and as part of our joint commitment to the principles of the refugee convention, and through the partnership, we have offered to settle particularly vulnerable refugees hosted in Rwanda, whom we could better support. Rwanda is leading in supporting the UNHCR and neighbouring regions with those in need of resettlement, and the UK will support these best efforts as its partner. We expect the number to be small. However, the UK resettles many refugees each year, through safe and legal paths from those first safe countries which accommodate many people who seek their sanctuary. As the MEDP has not yet been operationalised, there have not yet been any refugees from Rwanda resettled in the UK as part of it.
The second part of the noble Lord’s question was on the State Department. We have also just published a new treaty, which contains many legally binding elements. In the light of that, I imagine the State Department will reconsider.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm for the House that this country has a dualist regime? We do not just cut and paste international treaties but pass legislation in our domestic legislature. Does he further agree with me that the Prime Minister is right that we do not subjugate that to a foreign legal entity—the European Court of Human Rights? My concern, which the Minister might want to address, is that we have had four general election manifestos by our party that committed to reducing immigration, including the last one, on which we won a strong mandate. Is it not a concern that our horizons for how we shape our legislation are shifting from that—the mandate of the people—to the ECHR and now, potentially, the political vagaries of politicians in Rwanda?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In response to the first part of my noble friend’s question, I again repeat the Prime Minister’s words. He said this morning, and I agree, that:
“If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of our sovereign parliament … today’s new law … makes clear that the decision on whether to comply with interim measures issued by the European court is a decision for British government Ministers and British government Ministers alone”.
The good news is that it is the Government, and not criminal gangs or foreign courts, who decide who should come and who should stay in our country. It is very unreasonable to disagree with the Prime Minister’s remarks. In response to the second part of my noble friend’s question, I say that this is clearly a subject of considerable importance, which has been politically dominant in recent years. I therefore commend the Government’s efforts to try to solve it.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I will add a point of detail to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Kerr. The Government are aware that, until recently, some individuals were not being deported to Rwanda from the UK in relation to genocide of old. What is the current status of any individuals who remain in the UK and why is that? If they have not been deported, why has this taken so long?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on specific numbers of refugees from that particular incident. However, I can reassure the noble Viscount about the safety of the Republic of Rwanda. Clause 4 of the Bill allows that
“Decisions based on particular individual circumstances”
can be specifically exempted from some other aspects of the Bill. I will not read them, as he can read them himself.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, many of the problems that we have discussed over the months and years come from the backlog of applications to the Home Office. What does having two Ministers—one for legal migration and one for what the Government badge as illegal migration—do to address this? Also, the previous Home Secretary made it very clear that the Government’s proposals “will not work”, in her words. Is that because of her views about the European convention or does it come from some other inspiration about how to make the system work? If so, has she shared that with colleagues in the Home Office?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
She is not a colleague so, no, she has not shared it. I am not going to second-guess what she was trying to say this morning; that would be foolish. As regards having two Ministers for Immigration, this is a big subject so, clearly, it deserves two. I suppose I could give a flippant answer: at least they will be able to process these claims twice as fast.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely support the Government’s attempts to outlaw and stop the work of these criminal gangs, but we must proceed on a safe legal basis. My noble friend has accepted that the Government are proposing to set aside part of the ECHR. Can he confirm that we are still bound by the provisions of the international convention on refugees? Does he share my concern that, if reports are correct, the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation issued a statement yesterday saying the following:
“Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership”?
Can my noble friend give me a reassurance today that that will not be the case and we will proceed by legal means?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said in answer to an earlier question, Clause 1(6) details international law. It includes the human rights convention; the refugee convention; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966; and the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984. I could go on. I suggest that we read Clause 1(6); it is very clear.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the refugees from Rwanda be put up in hotels?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I really do not know how to answer that.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this legislation, not least because no alternative has been put forward by any of the critics in this House. Will the Government take advice from the French Government on how to announce these matters? On 31 October, when the French Interior Minister announced that France would ignore rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, there was no outrage from anyone in this House, nor from Foreign Office mandarins, the Bishops’ Benches or the opposition parties. On 14 November, France put it into practice and deported an Uzbek refugee, despite a ruling from the European court that it should not do so and ignoring its own domestic legal procedures. There was no outcry; there was not even a BBC report of this event. In America, Biden, who originally criticised the behaviours of his predecessor, has refouled 1 million refugees across the border with Mexico in the past 18 months. If human rights are international and universal, why do they not apply in France and America?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, as he did earlier this week when asking his Question. I must say, since answering it I have pored over the various publications one would normally expect to make remarks about such a potential outrage, and I have found that they are few, so my noble friend is quite right to make that observation. Obviously, it is not for a Minister to comment from the Dispatch Box on what other countries are doing, but I would observe that plenty of other countries in Europe and around the world are investigating similar schemes to the one we propose. We have those conversations on a regular basis, including with countries such as Germany and Denmark.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, may I rephrase—or re-present—the question put by the right reverend Prelate in respect of clergymen coming to this country, which was rebuffed on the grounds that the Church of England is rather wealthy, given its endowments, and should pay its vicars more? As a Methodist—we have no land or money to back us up, and our salaries are much lower than those of vicars—may I ask whether Methodist ministers will be allowed to benefit from whatever can be benefited from in this legislation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I would certainly make a personal observation: he has a much better case.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the British people place great emphasis on the concept of fairness? A system that rewards people for undermining the existing system by trying to jump the queue cannot be appropriate and actually, it serves to bring the whole system into disrepute. Surely, we have to find a way—the British people expect us to do so—to make sure that those who work with the system and work fairly are treated properly.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point and directs me, in many ways, back to what the Prime Minister said this morning:
“illegal immigration undermines not just our border controls … it undermines the very fairness that is so central to our national character. We play by the rules. We put in our fair share. We wait our turn. Now if some people can just cut all that out … you’ve not just lost control of your borders … you’ve fatally undermined the very fairness upon which trust in our system is based.”
I agree.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, if this legislation is as effective as the Minister implies, can he tell the House why he thinks the Immigration Minister was wrong to resign?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No, I cannot. I have not spoken to him.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, it is no secret that I am not very happy with my own party at the moment. Is the Minister aware that I strongly support the policy he has outlined? The fact is that, for instance, every female asylum seeker from Afghanistan is genuine: they have a very good case. But, in answer to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, once the first 50 or so asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda, is it not the case that there will be no further people risking their lives coming across the channel on small boats, because it will be pointless?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I certainly hope so. This gives me an opportunity to remind the House that part of the reason we are discussing migration on such a regular basis is that this country has been generous, as we have discussed before. There are BNO passport holders, Ukrainian visas, and ARAP in Afghanistan, as my noble friend has alluded to. I think it is well worth restating that for the record.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not the disapply the rights of others and other minorities should judgments come from the European Court of Human Rights, or indeed the Supreme Court, that they do not agree with?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think I have already answered that question in terms of decisions based on individual and particular circumstances. I will leave it at that for now.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, are the Government minded to consider the approach of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who spoke of a knee-jerk reaction without the long-term solutions that are absolutely required for migratory issues? Will the Government give some consideration to implementing such a solution, so that we can resolve this whole problem worldwide?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said when the most reverent Primate asked me the question, global circumstances would clearly suggest that that is a very good approach. Clearly, also, those conversations are ongoing in high-level diplomatic circles. But the fact is, as I said earlier in answer to my noble friend Lord Lilley, that the world is also looking for solutions to this problem on a bilateral basis.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the Minister’s reply to my question about numbers, because they are important in the question of whether this will be an effective deterrent. His answer was that the scheme is uncapped, but what is the present capacity of Rwanda to take asylum seekers from the UK? The Government must know that: they have given Rwanda £140 million and are in the process of giving it more, although they will not declare that number to Parliament. What is the capacity? Is the Court of Appeal right that it is 100? Is he saying that the Court of Appeal is wrong?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Government do know that number but unfortunately, I do not, because I forgot to ask the question this morning. I will have to write to the noble Lord; I apologise.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is being asked a lot about numbers. I know that many people here are concerned about this policy and think about the effect it will have on people when they want to come here, because we want to dissuade those who are being trafficked and hurt. Really, the numbers we should be considering are of those who drown on the route here. I do not want to see any more women, children or men drowning in the English Channel. If this policy helps to reduce those numbers, does my noble friend not agree that we should be pushing that and ensuring that those numbers go down?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I could not agree more with my noble friend. I tried to make the point earlier that one of the principal reasons for doing this is to deter illegal boat crossings, which are dangerous not just to the asylum seekers themselves but to those who are sent to rescue them.
Latin America
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hooper
That this House takes note of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the countries of Latin America, and the political trends and economic developments in those countries.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, recent developments in the 20 countries of Latin America have drawn more media attention to the region than it normally enjoys in this country, so it is a happy circumstance that, having tried for a balloted debate for the last two years, I was finally able to secure this wide-ranging debate on a Conservative day. I am especially pleased that my noble friend Lord Ahmad will reply on behalf of the Government since, in spite of his wide portfolio of duties in the FCDO, which do not include Latin America, he has nevertheless been very recently in South America. I declare my interests—all non-pecuniary—as a past president and current vice-president of Canning House; as a past chairman and current vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Latin America; and as trade envoy to Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic.
In this troubled world, and post Brexit, we need more friends. It has always seemed to me that the historic links between the United Kingdom and Latin America are not sufficiently recognised or emphasised in this country. The independence movements 200 years ago, when our then Foreign Secretary George Canning
“called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/1826; col. 397.]
may not always be remembered here, and our children may not be taught about it, but it is well remembered throughout Latin America. There is tremendous good will and respect for the United Kingdom as a result. I believe that to be the best foundation for a good future relationship. I hope today’s debate will help to raise awareness and demonstrate new opportunities to improve on our current links and relationships, and do so in such a way as always to recognise the particular attributes of Latin America, such as its rich biodiversity; ensure that environmental concerns and climate change are taken into account, including Latin Americans’ role in that respect; and ensure that human rights and, indeed, the rights of indigenous people are safeguarded.
Why is Latin America an important region of the world, particularly for us? It is not just because, with a combined population of over 600 million people, it represents a huge market with a young and dynamic population, or because we share democratic values, although that is important when we work together in multinational organisations, as well as bilaterally. It is very much because, to the gold and silver which attracted Europeans to the New World in the first place, there have been added rich deposits of oil and gas, of copper, lithium and cobalt—the very commodities needed to enable us to reach net zero and look forward to living in a cleaner world. Many other renewable initiatives are taking place throughout the region; green hydrogen, in particular, is being developed, especially in Chile.
On the Motion, and looking at our trade relationships, it is sad to consider that this large and important region represents only 2% of UK imports and 2.5% of our exports, but that gives us huge opportunities to do more in investment and infrastructure projects, especially water and sewage treatment, but also in green finance and financial services generally, and, indeed, in the education sector, particularly in tech. Those are of great importance in looking forwards. The Department for Business and Trade is working hard at it, our embassies throughout the region are doing a terrific job and I really believe that the future looks bright.
Brazil is clearly the biggest economy. It plays a leading role as a BRIC country and is about to assume the presidency of the G20. Mexico is the second-biggest economy. Interestingly, not only do we have a variety of exports to Mexico but we can see a lot of Mexican investment in the United Kingdom. Anybody who sees the wagons of CEMEX, the concrete company, going around our construction sites will realise what an important role that plays.
The CPTPP, which we have just joined—indeed, the first day in Committee on that Bill is taking place even now in the Moses Room—includes Mexico, Peru and Chile, which have been Pacific Rim members of it from the start. They supported our application. One of the next applicant countries is Costa Rica—a stable country that is already a member of the OECD and is one of the countries I focus on as a trade envoy. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that the UK will give its support to Costa Rica’s application when it comes up.
Perhaps at this point it is appropriate to raise the issue of visas. I apologise to my noble friend because I did not give him advance warning of this. There is a great lack of consistency in the way visas are dealt with. It seems very odd that on the one hand we are trying to attract visits and trading opportunities, and on the other we are making them more and more difficult. Again, I revert to education, as this is something that applies to students, researchers and other such people—as well as leading politicians, in some cases. I hope that the British Government will try to iron out some of these problems, of which I am sure that they are well aware, as soon as possible.
As well as our trading relationship, political change has been very much in the air. The “pink wave”, which last year saw President Lula da Silva returned to the presidency in Brazil, is now overshadowed by very recent election results. For example, in Ecuador we now have Daniel Noboa—at age 35 the youngest President in the Americas, younger even than President Trudeau of Canada—who has the difficult task of building a constructive relationship with the National Assembly, a fractured body without a stable governing coalition, and with only the remaining 16 months of his predecessor’s term in office in which to achieve it. Argentina has recently elected Javier Milei, a self-proclaimed right-wing libertarian, reflecting an electorate desperate to have something done about 140% inflation and 40% poverty. Milei takes over this Sunday, and I am told that, so far, the population is hopeful and willing to accept the necessary hardships to come, and his appointments of his ministerial team have met with general approval.
In Peru we have seen six Presidents in five years—I think that just about beats us—but next year elections are due in El Salvador in February, in Mexico in June and in Venezuela in October. In the meantime, we have the distraction of the referendum called by President Maduro over the annexation of part of Guyana. That is a very vexed question that has existed for some time, but nevertheless the UK has a special interest here since Guyana is of course a member of the Commonwealth.
When we look at Latin America, it has to be recognised that there are problems, with violence, drug trafficking and gang warfare spreading to what were considered to be peaceful countries, such as Ecuador. Mineral exploitation of the commodities that I talked about earlier, which is so important for the net-zero figures and so on, should not be at the cost of human rights, especially those of indigenous people.
The last time we had a major debate on Latin America, as opposed to the several short debates we have had about specific countries on specific issues, was in 2010. That debate, led by the late Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, was the one in which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made his maiden speech, so I am delighted that he is joining us again today. I certainly hope it will not be as long again before we have the next general debate.
There are lots of facts, figures and statistics that could be quoted in this context. I have chosen not to do so, but I thank the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing, which contains many of them. I point to the launch of the Canning House LatAm Outlook, published on Tuesday this week, which presents a comprehensive look ahead at the next five years and gives all the necessary facts and figures. I have been able only to touch on many of the important issues, but I know that others will both broaden the debate and add more detail.
No country can do it alone. We live in an interdependent world, because of trade and security, and a world in which there is much conflict, so we certainly need friends. I believe that in Latin American countries we will find good and enduring friendships and relationships. I beg to move.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, whom I dare defy the conventions of the House in addressing as my noble friend, for we have worked together for many years on matters of common interest. I should have been in Wales today, but the GWR train drivers are on strike so I find myself here; otherwise, clearly, I would have had to wait another 10 years before having another opportunity to express my views. I hope she will not mind—and I think I know her mind well enough to know that she will not—if I broaden the geographical area to include the Caribbean. I must declare that I have the role of co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haiti.
I particularly draw attention to a recent meeting in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia that took place between 15 Caricom countries and the Saudi Arabian Government, with representation from the very top levels of Government there. That was much-vaunted. There was a huge amount of money from soft loan and development funds for various projects on island republics scattered through the Caribbean. It seems so recently it was China whose pervasive presence in the region we might have wanted to comment about, but Saudi Arabia is making a pitch for it now. Interestingly, of course, it was a sweetener because it not only sought but won the support of the Caribbean nations for the bid by Saudi Arabia to host Expo 2030 and later the 2034 football World Cup. Mutual interest, perhaps, was served.
Also in the Caribbean, we can note that Belize, in the light of what has been happening in the Middle East, has suspended diplomatic relations with Israel. Guyana and Venezuela are caught up in a pretty bitter dispute about a piece of land—it is Nagorno-Karabakh or Kashmir all over again, really—that they might go to war over because there are considerable deposits of oil found there that they are now contesting the right to exploit. Indeed, a contingent from the United States Department of Defense is arriving in Guyana shortly. Since coming into the Chamber, on my iPhone—yes, I too look at it now and again—I noticed that the Guyanese high commissioner is coming here, hotfoot, to discuss with our Government how we might help them in resolving the dispute with Venezuela.
Of course, all that brings me, inevitably, as my noble friend will know, to the island of Hispaniola. It is an island shared by the Dominican Republic and Haiti. What is going on in the Dominican Republic? It is extraordinary: its Parliament has just approved loans of $1.2 billion for a number of projects. It is expanding the number of free-zone companies for example, which bring in a lot of money through the tourist industry. It is investing in infrastructure—a number of projects related to better water supplies are being financed from this loan. Then, of all the things I would never have thought of, in Santo Domingo, which I have visited more than once, it is opening up, as a new project, a second metro line under Santo Domingo to improve transport across the city.
While in Riyadh, President Abinader of the Dominican Republic met with—and I pause for dramatic effect at this point—former Prime Minister Tony Blair, in order to pursue a conversation with him to improve bilateral relationships between the Dominican Republic and the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with that. They also discussed the apportioning of water from a river in the north of Haiti and the Dominican Republic—it is on the border, in fact. Rather gruesomely it is the Massacre River, so-named because in 1937 untold numbers—tens of thousands—of Haitians were massacred there as they sought to cross it. So, the water from that river has become contentious, and our former Prime Minister has been drawn into discussions about how to apportion that. Of course, I want to suggest an equal voice and presence in those discussions be given to people from the Haitian side of the river, because it does flow down the middle of those two countries.
Former Prime Minister Blair also talked to the current ad interim Prime Minister, Monsieur Ariel Henry. He is head of government, head of state, head of everything in Haiti: the only person who represents anything in Haiti in these chaotic days. It is a gruesome time there, with gangs and kidnapping and drugs. There is a total breakdown of order and no constitutional arrangements of any kind whatever. I happen to be working with one or two people who are known internationally for having found a way to create a positive future out of chaotic elements. I am hoping that the presence of such people now might just turn things round in Haiti. I lived there for 10 years; I was ordained as a Methodist minister there and my two children were born there. In so many ways, I have taken into myself a desire to advocate the cause of Haiti for as long as I draw breath—which is of course exactly the time that I shall be a Member of this House.
It is so important to realise how fragile all the constitutional arrangements in Haiti have been since it had the temerity to declare its independence, with its slaves overthrowing the French army under the leadership of General Leclerc—the brother-in-law of Napoleon, no less. It was in Haiti, not at Waterloo, that Napoleon’s might was challenged successfully for the first time. But for all that, since then there has been systematic rape, extortion and extraction of all the minerals and other resources of Haiti—raping it and giving it debts that it could never repay. If we talk about reparation—and in the light of Black Lives Matter, that and decolonisation are mentioned quite a lot—Haiti has the first claim. It ought to be first at the table. There is a quantifiable indebtedness or indemnity that was paid by Haiti for its freedom. The Haitian ex-slaves had to pay France for its independence; they had no money to do it with and took out huge loans on the international markets, which Haiti has spent the next 200 years repaying. It is an astonishing piece of theft and dubious politics.
I could go on. If I had 80 minutes instead of eight, I could break all of that down—but who will come to the rescue of unfashionable Haiti? He has gone now, but the noble Lord, Lord Swire, who was sitting over there, was the only government Minister I ever had anything to do with who took Haiti seriously. The United Nations and the Organisation of American States have both failed. There has been no success so far. Something must be done for a country that is 90 minutes’ flying time from America, and all the chaos that reigns there needs to be addressed. I have no proposals or questions to ask the Minister because I am still searching in my head to know how to frame and focus them. However, he is a man of considerable wisdom and experience. He can frame his own questions, guess at my desires and, I hope, begin to give me some hope in the matter.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Latin America is often overlooked or underestimated in its relevance and importance to the UK. The recent White Paper on international development, for example, contains only a tiny handful of specific references to this vast continent, despite prioritising some strategic themes of central concern within Latin America, in which the UK has a critical mutual interest and an established global leadership that could be leveraged more proactively, such as on human rights and business responsibility.
I am going to confine my remarks today to an issue of urgent concern in Peru and Colombia, where the UK is in a unique position to take the right initiatives to prevent further harm and redress existing problems. This is the impact of mining on the rights of indigenous populations and the environment. I declare my interests as a past president of the Peru Support Group and my involvement in another human rights NGO, ABColombia, under whose auspices I visited Colombia to evaluate progress in implementing the peace accord of 2016. I am grateful to both organisations for their excellent briefings and valuable work.
Mentioning the peace accord brings me to the first point of why the UK has such responsibility and influence in this matter: we are of course the penholder in the Security Council for the Colombian peace process. Added to which, we were—and I hope, remain—a leading voice at the UN in support of the principles of business and human rights, known as the Ruggie principles.
The third strand of UK interest is that the main mining company currently responsible for controversial activity, Glencore plc, is listed on the London Stock Exchange and receives funding and investment from UK financial institutions. A group of Peruvian and Colombian environmental and human rights defenders were in the UK only last week. Many of us met them and heard about the existential threats they are up against to preserve their land, way of life, food, water and health in the face of mining developments by Glencore.
The Cerrejón mine in La Guajira, Colombia, is wholly owned by Glencore and is one of the largest open-pit coal mines in the world. Its expansion over four decades has led to environmental degradation and serious human rights impacts. Studies show air pollution in excess of WHO recommended limits and in breach of limits imposed by the Colombian courts, raising the risk of cancer, DNA damage and chromosomal instability for those living in the region. The mine also consumes and contaminates significant quantities of water. The Ranchería River has unsafe levels of harmful metals, including mercury and lead, as a result of liquid waste being dumped in it, resulting in water scarcity, food scarcity, illness and disease.
Guajira is the ancestral land of the Wayuu people and many of their communities have been displaced to make way for the mine. Afro-Colombian and campesino communities have also been displaced, with evictions sometimes being carried out with armed guards, tear gas and metal projectiles. In 2016, bulldozers were used to destroy an Afro-Colombian village.
In Peru, where the UK is the largest foreign direct investor, it is a similar story. A recent report examined Glencore’s mining activities in the Espinar region, the ancestral territory of the Quechua and K’ana indigenous peoples, who are being exposed to levels of heavy metals, including mercury and arsenic, beyond what is permissible under international standards.
Water is contaminated and proposed further expansion is set to exacerbate fragmentation of communities and loss of territory, in breach of ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, including by paying inadequate attention to consulting those affected in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent before entire communities are displaced.
Also common to both countries is the acute vulnerability of environmental and human rights defenders. In recent years the number killed in Colombia has been unprecedented and only last week in Peru an indigenous leader was gunned down after a meeting about defending land against illegal loggers and cocaine producers.
Colombia’s constitutional court has ruled that Glencore should not pursue further expansion, saying that large-scale mining puts the environment and health at risk. Glencore’s response has been to sue the Colombian Government, using the investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, the ISDS, which forms part of the Colombia-UK bilateral investment treaty, the BIT. The ISDS process is secretive and therefore undemocratic and places enforceable obligations only on states, meaning that investors, such as Glencore, can win cases even if they have violated domestic law or international standards. Awards can run into millions of dollars and have led to several countries, including Australia and Brazil, omitting ISDS mechanisms from their trade agreements. Indeed, between 2017 and 2021, only one-third of trade agreements contained ISDS clauses and other countries such as Canada and the US are qualifying their use.
The ISDS is effectively a barrier to the proper implementation of the Colombian peace accord, delaying action on climate change and human rights, and legislation to protect health. The UK therefore, as UN penholder, has a special responsibility to act to mitigate this damage and I ask the Minister whether the Government will look seriously and urgently at terminating the UK-Colombia bilateral investment treaty, whose initial term expires in October 2024, but with automatic renewal for an indefinite period.
The Minister will know that if it is terminated unilaterally, a sunset clause of 15 years would protect existing investments and cause untold further damage to communities and the environment, not to mention the success of the peace accord, which should be being strengthened by President Petro’s “Total Peace” policy, not undermined by a British-listed mining company operating in defiance of Colombian law. An end to the BIT by mutual consent would neutralise the sunset clause, so I urge the noble Lord to initiate negotiations with this objective. This would be a major practical step, demonstrating the UK’s commitment to its responsibility as penholder. We have already helped the Colombian Government achieve an expansion of the UN mission of verification to include monitoring of the ELN peace process, and the Government deserve credit and congratulations for that. I hope the Minister will now build on that by acting as I have suggested on the BIT.
On Peru, I ask the noble Lord to raise with his opposite numbers in Peru the case for halting Glencore’s proposed mining expansion until it has produced a genuine environmental impact assessment and an opportunity for communities to give informed consent.
Finally, I ask the Minister if he will now support new legislation to mandate due diligence in supply chains and to hold commercial organisations accountable for their impacts on human rights and the environment. This would be in line with our commitment to the Ruggie principles and demonstrate on the international stage that the UK can walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree to seek government support for the Private Member’s Bill introduced last week by my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey, which would enact these much-needed provisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the issues and questions I have raised, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for the opportunity to raise them.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the House is truly indebted to my noble friend. There is nobody that I am aware of, in either House, who has the depth of knowledge that she has—and not just the knowledge but the knowledge put to good use. My noble friend the Minister knows that I have a very long association with South Asia going back about 70 years, but I am a relative newcomer to this region of the world. It started because the revered late Speaker in the other place, Betty Boothroyd, asked me in the summer of 1992 to lead a delegation on behalf of Parliament to go to Stanley and pay our respects to the losses we suffered, but the joy that the Falklands remained in our friendship and part of our Commonwealth.
I went, and that began to open my eyes, quite frankly. It is an incredible part of the world. A year later, my wife and I went on a vacation to Antarctica, visiting the research stations there and looking at the sheer beauty of that part of the world, but also the extent of the ice shelf and the then not really understood challenges associated with that. For myself, unfortunately I lost my seat in 1997, the marginal seat of Northampton, having been its first-ever Conservative Member. I said to my beloved, “We are both interested in wine; why don’t you go and find somewhere in the world, in the new world, where wine is important in the country?” She came back and said, “Right: I have found a small travel agent who will take three couples, and we are all going to Chile”. So, we went to Chile. Obviously, I went and saw the ambassador beforehand, and said we were going. Remarkably, when we went through passport control, the first words said to me in Chile were, “You are enormously welcome in my country”. You do not often get that at passport control elsewhere in the world.
Out of that, I led another delegation a couple of years later and I discussed with the then Chilean Ambassador that I was already a member of the Ordre Des Coteaux De Champagne and the Commanderie de Bordeaux a Londres. I said, “How would you feel if I tried to start a Chilean wine group?” I did not know that he was a master of wine when I asked him that, and the answer was very positive. I started the Cofradía del vino Chileno and we celebrated last evening, at the Caledonian club, with 54 people, the majority of whom are Chileans who are over here. But there is a good core of British people there and we thoroughly enjoyed one of Chile’s leading houses, Montes, and there were about half a dozen others.
When I first went to Chile, there were really no leading houses as such. One of the great jobs done by the Chileans, in our country, was to recognise that the original wines that came here were pretty bog standard—they were ordinary table wines. Today some of the finest wines we taste, particularly on a blind-tasting basis, come from Chile. That is how I lost my heart to Chile.
As it happens, 2023 is the 200th anniversary of the appointment of Great Britain’s first consul-general to Chile, in1823, which is auspicious in itself. I am so pleased that our Foreign Secretary made such a challenging speech in Chile, trying to say to the world that the countries of South America need to be more greatly involved in what is happening in the world. It was an outstanding and timely speech, and it was a huge help. There is another, practical side, which will help a bit. There was a 9% increase in bilateral trade between the UK and Chile in 2022. We now have a UK-Chile modernisation roadmap and have also agreed a memorandum of understanding on the development of the financial sector. Both those should boost international bilateral trade.
Chile itself has shown initiative by joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as CPTPP. Thanks to my noble friend and his team on the Front Bench we were the first European country to join the organisation. That is real initiative, so well done. What will that do? It will reduce red tape for trade between Chile and the UK, simplify the import-export process, reduce tariffs on imported goods and could—and should—lead to cheaper prices for some consumer products we get here in Britain, such as fruit juices.
There are opportunities there, and I think they are very exciting. In addition, I understand we have pledged £2 million to support academic exchanges and capacity-building projects in the lithium industry, which is pretty important to the future of the electric vehicle industry. Also, I am very pleased that we are building a scholarship programme for outstanding students. On the educational front, in which I am involved, it could extend a little further into the younger age groups.
In October 2023, a few weeks ago, the UK and Chile signed a renewed partnership agreement on Antarctica. We must just reflect on where the Falklands are in relation to there.
I just make one plea. We have no ambassador from Chile here at the moment. I urge my noble friend the Minister to say to the Chileans that we want to work with them, and we believe in what they are trying to do: could they please send us another ambassador, because the ambassador provides the leadership? It is okay at the moment, but I would hope that early in the new year we will see a new ambassador. The last one was female; the one before was male. I do not mind who they are: I just want them to come over here and join this very exciting country and the development it does. How good it was to go to Richmond upon Thames, a few months ago, to see the monument to Bernardo O’Higgins, who gave them independence, and resided in Richmond upon Thames.
Lord Brennan (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on introducing this debate, which is so important. I remind the House of my interests in Latin America, which are set out in the register, including advising companies and investors on how get into Latin America and once they are there to make a success of it, and vice versa, from there to here. My wife is patron of the Anglo Latin American Foundation, which supports poor and needy children on that continent.
Our country’s relationship with the countries of Latin America has been of historic duration. A key figure was George Canning. As Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the 1820s, he chose to persuade our Government to recognise the new countries and states that were setting themselves up on the Latin American continent. He shared wisdom and foresight, hence his statue in Parliament Square, put up within a few years of his death, and hence the blue plaque on his house in Berkeley Square. It says simply but nobly “George Canning”, his birth and death years below, and, in the middle, one word: “statesman”. He recognised the creation of a group of nations that had a long-term future with which we should be associated.
Let us remember that it is not just the rich and famous companies or people who went to Latin America. Cornish tin miners mined in Mexico when tin stopped being mined in Cornwall. Welsh farmers set up farms in Patagonia, and the Welsh community there is still extant a couple of hundred years later. In London now, we count ourselves lucky to have top-class diplomats from these countries, working hard in their interests and ours, two of whom are in the Gallery today, from Peru and Costa Rica.
What about the future? Latin America is approaching 700 million people. They are educated people, with a high literacy rate in most countries. They know what they are doing. It is the largest net food exporter territory in the world. The beef exports are world famous. The next time you buy a tin of Fray Bentos, have a look. Fray Bentos was the port in Uruguay through which the beef in the tin came from there to here—hence Fray Bentos, started by the Vestey family here in England.
Argentina has a huge shale field for oil and gas. Brazil, Argentina and Mexico are three very important countries for oil and gas. As for renewable energy, solar intensity is very high in some areas of Latin America. The winds are long and strong in some areas. They are ready for renewable energy and for us to help them.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, mentioned Guyana, which is a member of the British Commonwealth. It was colonised as a new country by us in the 18th and 19th centuries. Last Friday, 1 December, the International Court of Justice, in front of which there is a case about the territorial claim by Venezuela, made a statement requiring Venezuela not to take any action involving Guyana until the court had made a judgment. I trust that our Government will stand by that attitude of the ICJ. On Sunday in Venezuela, a “referendum vote”—in inverted commas—is supposed to have asked the people of the country to help invade the disputed territory, which has plenty of oil and gas. We must help as and when required—certainly, diplomatically.
There is plenty of mining of the strategic minerals of lithium and nickel in the southern Andes. We have listed on our stock exchange the largest precious metals company in Mexico, Fresnillo, and the largest mining company in Peru, Hochschild, because we value the benefit of their business internationally.
I turn to the climate change of the future. Of all the global places about which we have heard, the Amazon rainforest is probably the last place where the world is breathing safely. Let us help Brazil in particular to look after that important sector.
Let us be careful, because China is in Latin America—big time. The trade between China and Argentina is measured in billions of US dollars. China is helping to build a new railway system in Argentina, and—hear this—it wants to open a Chinese subsidiary port in a place called Ushuaia in the deep south of Argentina, opposite the Falklands and next to Antarctica. It is on the Atlantic coast, not the Chinese-facing Pacific. This is serious stuff.
Therefore, let us look for a balanced relationship. This is an important part of the world. Its countries will look to us in the future as they have done in the past. As we start the third century of our long-term relationships, let us go to it.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I join other Members in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on securing this important debate. She is a champion for closer relations with Latin America. As a distinguished former president of Canning House, she is, quite frankly, an inspiration. I declare my own unremunerated interest as the current honorary president of Canning House, which is now in its 80th year. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, another of its former presidents.
According to my latest figures, Latin America has a population of around 650 million, almost double that of the United States and 10 times that of the UK. Three of the largest cities in the world by population are located there, and the region is the second-most urbanised in the world, with 78% of people living in cities.
However, as we have heard, it is a very sad fact that Latin America, in general, does not receive the attention in Britain that it deserves. At a time of great international concern, it is deeply regrettable but perhaps understandable that Latin America is not higher on the Government’s list of priorities.
As CEO of Canning House and former Latin America Minister in the coalition Government, Jeremy Browne, writes in the introduction to our latest review of the region, the LatAm Outlook 2024, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned and was published just two days ago—I commend it highly to those with an interest in Latin America—there is a
“danger … that Britain overlooks Latin America, not consciously, but because there are always bigger distractions elsewhere”.
This is most unfortunate, as Latin America is an important partner for Britain across a whole range of interests. There is real friendship from many of these countries dating back to their independence, where, in most instances, the UK played a significant part.
In the 19th century, Britain had a huge hand in developing the coffee trade, building railways and much more. The longest traded share on the London Stock Exchange is that of the Chilean copper miner Antofagasta. I have personally enjoyed great friendship in Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Panama and Costa Rica in business, as sheriff and then Lord Mayor of London, and with a son now living and marrying in Costa Rica.
The great majority of the Latin American countries are democracies. A number of them, including Chile, Peru and Argentina, have in the recent past come through intense elections, opting for major change, but accomplished correctly, in each case according to their constitutions. The remarkable political maturity that much of Latin America has demonstrated recently is something we should commend and support. We are told that autocracies now outnumber democracies. I ask the Minister, who is held in such high regard in this Chamber, to confirm that the very status of established democracy is an important consideration for our Government when looking at Latin America.
There would appear to be no early likelihood of armed conflict—I leave aside questions of Guyana and, sadly, now Venezuela—between any Latin American nations. Leaving aside internal conflicts, to which I shall return, these are peace-loving countries. None of them has nuclear capabilities.
Latin America is an obvious ally for the UK on climate change. The region is often cited as a custodian of the Amazon. A number of countries in central America—Costa Rica, Panama and Ecuador—enjoy the remarkable distinction of being at or close to carbon neutrality. More broadly, it is a world-leading region in the utilisation of non-carbon energy.
With more than half of the world’s known reserves of lithium and more than 40% of known copper reserves, the region is of great interest to China, the United States and Europe. It is also the world’s biggest net exporter of food, as we have heard, with an estimated 18% of all global food exports by 2031. The region is a source of significant additional oil and gas production, notably from Brazil and Guyana—I strongly support the remarks made about the need to guarantee that country’s security. We should not overlook the vast potential for shale gas in Argentina. At a time when much of the world is looking to avoid Russian oil and gas, and it makes sense not to be overdependent on the Middle East, this is a clear opportunity for Latin America.
Along with its significant hydroelectric power, major potential for solar and wind generation, and the promise of green hydrogen, Latin America has a great deal going for it—so what is holding it back? It is certainly not China, which has been investing heavily. It recognises the important resources and potential of the region. In particular, it has invested heavily in rare minerals. Apparently, this has not been achieved by any underhand methods; it has been buying companies on the open market. The reality is that China takes a very long-term view, often in contrast to what might be termed the West. Further, with its absolutist structure, with government, business and finance aligned, it has the ability to move rapidly and progress at pace. There is a clear contrast with the West. Latin American trade with China has grown, while there has been limited growth with the US and Europe. In 2000, Latin American trade with China stood at $12.5 billion. By 2021, it stood at $450 billion. The view has been expressed that Latin America wants to avoid replacing one hegemony, the United States, with another, China. This is a clear opportunity for Britain and Europe.
In my view, the biggest obstacles to western investment are transport infrastructure, security and corruption. Although living standards have been rising, and with a growing middle class, there remains considerable poverty throughout the region. Poverty and, in some cases, remoteness from positive government influence and intervention have shaped a growing trade in narcotics, particularly cocaine, which represents an horrific epidemic, particularly in North America and Europe. I personally have difficulty blaming all that on Latin American countries, where local poverty and remoteness stimulate the growing of illegal crops, feeding the demand for well-to-do individuals in rich countries. With this demand come whole structures of often sophisticated illegal transport, sometimes affecting countries just because they have very good infrastructure. It is easy to say, but we must find a way to eliminate the enrichment of callous lawbreakers wherever they are, but not least in Latin America, where they are holding countries back, spawning lawlessness and discouraging investment.
Given its enormous land mass, Latin America is important in terms of geopolitics, international trade and freedom of navigation. Britain has close defence ties with Chile, defence co-operation with Brazil and a history of seeking to assist the Government of Colombia in its challenges with the narcotics industry. On the other hand, the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands has been a thorny matter in relations with Argentina and, to an extent, the wider region.
This is a vital time for UK business and trade. Our competitors, not only China but elsewhere in Asia, North America and Europe, are not sitting around. The government support and encouragement is vital. I was impressed by the contents of a paper presented by the business specialist for Latin America and the Caribbean at the Department for Business and Trade. Good work is going on to make trade easier. For example, there are now eight double taxation agreements, including with Brazil, and the shiny new agreement with the CPTPP, among other positive developments. She drew attention to areas of opportunity, including fintech, where there are many highly tech-savvy individuals in Latin America. In general, IT is growing much faster in these countries than national income.
This is perhaps a good moment to mention how fortunate we are to have an exceptionally engaged Minister for Latin America in David Rutley, and we are also fortunate to have some dedicated diplomats in post in the region. We are also blessed with an excellent cadre of Latin American diplomats here in London.
In the post-Brexit era, with an outward-looking Britain, it is particularly important that the UK builds relationships with increased exports. The good will and friendship of many Latin Americans towards the UK is well known. We have much on our side to encourage, but we must first grow British awareness of the value and attraction of the region.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on obtaining this debate; the interval since the last one has been unacceptably long. In her career, both here and as a Member of the European Parliament, she has always been an assiduous worker for the progressive causes to which she has devoted her life.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am not a specialist in Latin American affairs, but my interest in the area was aroused when I had the good fortune to work in the Labour Governments from 1997 to 2010. As part of that, I met some remarkable people. I met Presidents Lagos and Bachelet of Chile and saw how that country was putting the terrible experience of the Pinochet dictatorship behind it, but in an extremely impressive spirit of generosity and wanting to forgive the past.
I also met President Lula da Silva, who is one of the most remarkable political figures of our age, given his emergence from a poverty-stricken background to become a trade union leader and then President of his great country. Of course he has his faults, but to my mind he grasped the essentials of being a progressive politician. He recognised that he had to work very strongly with the private sector to develop Brazil’s enormous economic potential, but at the same time he was very committed to tackling poverty. Many children and poor families in Brazil benefited from his admirable social programme, which introduced a form of child benefit for every Brazilian family.
Of course, Britain used to be very important in the region, and many noble Lords have referred to George Canning to prove that. I am certainly aware of its importance, as I am from Cumberland and I know that Workington Iron & Steel produced many of the steel rails that built the railways of South America. I am afraid that the days of our imperialist economic success are not going to return. But I am also a child of the post-war era, and we would never have survived without South American ham and corned beef, as we were still on the ration until 1954.
Let me just make a few big points. First, thinking about South America enables us to think about some of the biggest challenges of our time. People have referred to climate change and the paradox of the need to preserve the Amazonian forest while, at the same time, the exploitation of the continent’s minerals and raw materials is a massive opportunity for us all. We need to strike the right balance that results in environmental sustainability.
Secondly, the drugs trade, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, is relevant to Europe but obviously very relevant to South America. It is easy to be critical, but one has to remember the needs of some of the poor peasants who survive as a result of this trade. We have to find a different way to give them economic opportunity.
Thirdly, and most importantly, some speakers referred to the growth of democracy in Latin America. That is very encouraging, and we need to think about how to sustain it. At the same time, I am worried that, on the Ukraine conflict, which for me is an existential defence of democracy, so many people from countries in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere do not automatically and instinctively think of it as a battle for the fundamental rights of democracy. They do not understand it, and this is a great worry.
One of my suggestions to the Minister, even though this is not his area of responsibility, is to think seriously about Britain’s role in this part of the world. As a starting point, I would like an audit of British soft power in Latin America and how we can make more of it—of the British Council, the World Service, the links between universities in Britain and Latin America, and the research opportunities that Latin America offers us. Our universities can also bring an even greater understanding of their culture, history and language. The Government could do that: they could bring everybody together and find a way to get more value from what we already do.
The other thing that we have to think about more seriously is our trade and development strategy for the region. Trade is an issue that I have always followed closely, ever since I worked in the Commission. Last week, I saw that the EU has abandoned its attempt to secure a trade deal with Mercosur, at least for the moment. Now that we have an independent trade policy, what is Britain’s trade strategy in Latin America? How do we relate that to our development strategy? It seems to me that we cannot go to countries and say, “We’ll trade with you only if you do environmentally acceptable things”, if we, as a comparatively rich country, are not prepared to offer aid and development in order to make sure that it is easier for those countries to do the right thing on such issues. Trade and development must be linked, and I am not convinced—this is not a party-political point—that that linkage has so far been established. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for bringing forward this important debate. Although noble Lords will not find it on my entry in the register of interests, I am proud to say that my wife is Peruvian and I have been a regular visitor to the country for the past 27 years. I want to take this opportunity to highlight its economic developments, our relationship with Peru and the possibilities that we can seize upon, which will benefit both the UK and Peru.
When I first arrived at Jorge Chávez Airport in Lima on a warm, sunny day in December 1996, nothing could quite have prepared me for what was about to happen. I walked out of the relatively controlled arrivals area into a cacophony of hundreds of gentlemen shouting “Taxi!” at the top of their voices. The road from the airport to the residential area of Lima was lined with cars that would have been most unlikely to pass their MoT in the UK. It was also clear that, unfortunately, this was a country where poverty and economic hardship were borne by a number of the population.
Fast-forward 27 years and the Lima that I first encountered back then has been completely transformed. There is now a well-maintained three-lane highway from the airport, lined with shopping centres and restaurants. The old cars have, for the most part, been replaced by shiny new vehicles, and less of the population appears to be experiencing difficulty. Once-makeshift towns are now areas bustling with communities, shops, restaurants and roads. There are new residential developments all over the city, and future buildings appear like mushrooms at every visit. There is a burgeoning middle class, growing from around 15% in 2006 to 34% in 2019, made possible by access to capital in the form of mortgages and loans. Consumer spending has risen as more and more people are lifted out of poverty and the country’s middle class expands. To be clear, poverty levels are still too high: there was a steady decline from 57% in 2004 down to 20% pre pandemic but that had risen back to 28% in 2022, and those in the middle class have dropped from 43% down to 20% as a result of the recent global economic turbulence. However, we should remain optimistic that this can trend back to pre-pandemic levels.
Peru’s economic success has been driven by mining, agriculture, natural resources and tourism. The statistics tell the story. The country has the world’s largest reserve of silver, at 98,000 metric tonnes, as well as significant reserves of gold, lead and zinc. Peru provides half of the world’s supply of the superfood quinoa. Breathtaking experiences such as Machu Picchu, Cusco—the capital of the Inca empire—and untouched rainforest complete with pink dolphins, jaguars and river otters are all part of the scenery. The country boasts more than 4,000 species of butterfly and 2,100 species of fish, both respectively the largest species numbers of their kind in the world.
It is no surprise that, of all Spain’s colonial conquests on that continent, it was in Lima that it decided to install its viceroy. Peru was the jewel in the crown as far as it was concerned. It is also worth flagging that Peru has three distinct regions—the coast, the jungle and the mountains—each with its own unique climate, gastronomy, culture and trade opportunity. Peru has 28 of the world’s 32 climate zones, and it is this rich and deep diversity which, in my mind, makes Peru one of the key Latin American countries that we should continue to develop ever-stronger links with.
As recently as October of this year, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of our bilateral relationship. The UK is one of the leading investors in Peru. Our very own Hay Literary Festival, which promotes culture and social responsibility, takes place every year in Arequipa, the birthplace of Peru’s most famous Nobel Prize-winning writer, Mario Vargas Llosa. The previous Foreign Minister was one of over 270 Peruvian Chevening scholars who have been welcomed in the UK over the years.
The reintroduction of direct London to Lima flights will commence this month; the removal of short-term visa requirements just over a year ago for Peruvians visiting the UK will open up further partnership opportunities on business, tourism and trade; and, following accession to the CPTPP, UK business visitors will also enjoy an extended length of stay in Peru.
From a trade perspective, UK exports were £373 million in 2023, and the UK is now the most important European market for Peru. Peruvian exports of liquefied natural gas to the UK hit over £1 billion between November 2021 and March 2022, versus just over £80 million over the three-year period prior to that.
There are many reasons we can be confident that our relationship will continue to grow and that bilateral trade and investment will increase, but there are a number of areas which merit further consideration.
Notwithstanding the CPTPP agreement, what are the Government doing additionally to help UK SMEs diversify their supply chains and look to Peru, and indeed Latin America, as a partner? The Peruvian economy is well known to the likes of Anglo American and Rio Tinto, but what about our smaller companies, which could undoubtedly benefit from engaging in trade with their Peruvian and Latin American counterparts, but for which the continent is simply not on the radar? For example, in the fertiliser sector, small and medium-sized Peruvian farms are importing high-tech machinery to improve quality and production capacity. British-made machinery could surely compete in that space.
Many nutritionists say that, if they had to save one country in the world after a disaster, it would be Peru, due to the abundance of its superfoods such as quinoa, which is now a staple in many parts of the globe. When paired with exercise, these superfoods should promote physical and mental well-being. Given the ever-increasing importance of this post pandemic, I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to increase trade in these types of superfoods from Latin America and encourage consumption as part of a nationwide health and well-being strategy?
In summary, there are many ways in which the UK and Peru can enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship across a variety of industries, trade and knowledge sharing. Accession to the CPTPP will be a great enhancement, but there are still many other opportunities for us to pursue.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, there is nobody more qualified than the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to lead on this debate, with her good name being synonymous with Latin America and much respected by all there. I remember like yesterday her counselling me all those years ago. Thank goodness for that. I remember her words to the letter while I was preparing my first remarks in your Lordships’ House on the very subject that brings us together today.
What has changed? Not a lot, in a word. While for us band of aficionados, Latin America remains front and centre, the cancer of corruption stifling growth continues, drugs and security issues prevail, and the steady northbound economic migration trek for the impoverished continues unabated, with the result that Latin America has hitherto not reached its potential. A sense of despair drives migrants northwards to the US border, and has even become an established route attracting Chinese, who make the perilous trek through the Darién Gap. We urgently need the 10-year evaluation, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury recently called for, to understand and implement counter-migration measures.
The question of whether or not Argentina signs off on BRICS membership, as was agreed in Johannesburg, and the averting of hyperinflation, together with whether to support dollarisation, awaits. Brazil’s President Lula may have miscalculated, for it was he who proposed that Argentina be admitted into an expanded BRICS to counter China, by supporting a regional ally at the table. Whatever the outcome, engaging and working together with China, with its initiatives and expanding presence in the Latin American-Caribbean region, is causing growing anxiety in the United States.
The continuing existence of the long-stagnant Mercosur is potentially under threat with a potential withdrawal of Argentina, following the Trump-like decision to withdraw from the CPTPP and, dare one say it, a trend that followed on from our EU withdrawal. The need for alternative sources of financing, possibly through the New Development Bank, with Argentina’s reserves at near zero and the peso plummeting, will probably focus minds, but we await inauguration and consequential decisions from mid-December.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the across-the-board political spectrum, with Brazil’s centre-left President together with Colombia’s ultra-left-wing President interacting with Argentina’s incoming far-right libertarian President, plays out.
Regrettably, I too turn our minds to Guyana, a fellow member of the Commonwealth, which is facing extreme pressure from a possible land grab by Venezuela, in defiance of a UN court decision. It is imperative that the international community stands firm against President Maduro saying that he will immediately proceed to grant operating licences for the exploration and exploitation of oil, gas and mines in the Essequibo region. Yesterday, Secretary of State Blinken with the Guyanese President reaffirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Guyana’s sovereignty.
The people of Venezuela voted to support this in a referendum, but they will ultimately suffer the consequences. They should be aware in no uncertain terms that a land grab will end in tears. Venezuela can assuredly say goodbye to regional legitimacy if it follows through on armed and unprovoked aggression. Some analysts suggest this is a possible co-ordinated geopolitical action to drive down oil prices and receive domestic support for a battered autocracy. Without in any way knowing for certain, but understanding the relationship between Russia and Venezuela, it would come as no surprise if the dark arts of the Kremlin were lurking somewhere in the background as an anti-Western distraction. This needs to be nipped in the bud as a matter of urgency; I call today for immediate sanctions to be applied on Maduro and the lead general engineering this. Does the Minister agree? If so, will he say so unequivocally in his summing up, including speaking on other measures the Government are proposing to implement?
The UK should be co-ordinating with Mercosur and the OAS and with other regional policy mechanisms to lower tensions. Co-ordinating with President Macron, as another example, would also be no bad thing given the regional play of Total, particularly in French Guiana. It is better and cheaper to hedge through diplomacy than commit resources on the ground. However, as a fallback, I believe Brazil could step in, not least because it has economic interests in Guyana or, if there be reluctance by President Lula, Chile’s President Boric could be an option to support, alongside Uruguayan and Paraguayan elements.
However, none of what I have described should detract from the reality that the region at large presents tremendous opportunity and hope for the future. There is the boundless energy, beauty and charm of the place: from the lakes of southern Chile to the Pampas of Argentina to the grandeur of the Foz do Iguaço to the shores of northern Brazil to the spectacular Andean countries and Colombia’s coffee growing region and on into Mexico, where all the richness and culture and past history that that country provides makes it a haven.
In trade terms, the UK is on the cusp of CPTPP membership and will be joining, as has already been said, Mexico, Peru and Chile as partners. I commend the Peruvian authorities for bringing their priorities to the attention of the UK recently, and I place on record how impressed I was by the innovative speech of President Peña of Paraguay, who in his recent COP address underlined how Paraguay is crucial in food and energy security, has enormous awareness about the environment and is taking steps to be considered as an example in this field.
The importance of Brazil on the world stage can never be passed over. During the remainder of President Lula’s current tenure, Brazil will be at the forefront and greatly influencing world affairs with the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council and through the Mercosur alliance and the BRICS group. It has also just taken over the presidency of the G20 from India.
I too congratulate and welcome the newly arrived ambassador for Colombia, and I shall say a more detailed word for the record on Colombia, a country with which I have a close association. Since my time there, I am to understand that many Brits have made their home there. Colombia is a generous host to over 1 million Venezuelans looking for better work opportunities and living conditions. The technology and innovation environment is growing, with foreign investment providing funding and bringing talent by new visa types that allow digital nomads to reside and receive benefits from the Government. Fruit and vegetable exports are growing, with new European economic ties helping the economy, but coffee demand is volatile. On the downside, however, private construction has dropped by about 50%, with infrastructure projects by 25%, and the peso has suffered a big devaluation but is now managing to stabilise.
There is much that needs to be said on such a vast and important subject, but I save my concluding remark with a final message to our friends in Argentina: learn from history and hands off the Falklands.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. When I was in the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, highlighted to me the slight mix-up in the speaking order on the list. There was a degree of disappointment, because I had a frisson of excitement that I was finally going to be speaking on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition —I might have to wait a few months for that.
This has been a really good debate, because there has been a mix of the professional, with real depth of experience, and personal too, especially from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham—he may have just missed out the variety of potatoes, but other than that he offered the whole sweep of Peru, which left me thinking that, when we end this debate, it might be a perfect time for a pisco sour, so perhaps His Excellency might be able to provide some refreshments at the end. I hope that the excellent ambassador for Peru and his colleagues took heart from this debate and from the strength of feeling about ensuring that the UK’s relationships get even stronger.
As the noble Viscount and others have said, there is no stronger advocate for that than the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I have had the privilege of accompanying the noble Baroness on a visit to the region and it was akin to a royal visit, where we minor members of the delegation were slightly shunted aside when the Foreign Minister wanted to kiss Gloria. That is testament not only to her passion for the region but also to the long-standing nature of that.
The noble Baroness’s summary at the start of the debate was exactly right: this is a time for the UK to have more friends around the world. The challenges on climate and sustainability are shared concerns. The UK has a long-standing cross-party consensus on topical issues such as human rights, civil and political rights and support for indigenous communities, and the combination of all three highlights the value that the UK can provide in this relationship.
In that regard, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who rightly raised the sometimes complex issues of human rights. Before our visit to Peru, for example, she briefed me and others on the difficult subject of forced sterilisation and the complexities concerning the indigenous communities and mining, which has been raised as an element of one of our key economic partnerships. We also have a role to play there. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, indicated, often the mining concessions and their financing not only are located in the UK but go through the City of London, so we have not only economic value but, to some extent, a social and moral responsibility when it comes to the associated community impacts of that extraction industry. I have met indigenous representatives in Parliament who have been elected in Colombia, and in dialogue with them it has been fascinating for me to see the transition.
Another thread in the debate highlighted the economic relationship. Reference has been made to the House of Lords Library briefing, and, although we often put Covid out of our minds, one element in the Library briefing showed how heavy a toll Covid has taken on the populations in Peru and, indeed, elsewhere in Latin America. It has had an ongoing impact on the recovery of those economies, which then has a direct link to UK trading relationships.
I looked at the level of those trading relationships, which is relatively low and could of course be stronger. For the Andean relationship—that is, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru—the figure is just short of £6 billion; for the six countries in Central America, it is £2.5 billion; and for Chile and Mexico combined, it is nearly another £7 billion. In total, that is just over £16 billion. As has been indicated, that should be a floor, and we should be building on that.
On the deeper relationships relating to the challenges we face going forward, I met the Brazilian ambassador last week and we had a fascinating dialogue about the role that Brazil can play. It will host the next COP but one, and it has brought forward innovative solutions for this COP with which the UK can partner. We have seen that we can be partners with other countries in addressing many of the challenges of the time, especially those relating to climate and transition.
In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify one point. I am currently uncertain when it comes to one of our investment arms, British International Investment. Is Latin America now covered by BII or not? It went from not being covered to then being covered under Liz Truss, but now I understand it is once again not covered as far as emerging and middle-ranking economies are concerned. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
On the latest Argentinian elections, I think we are all fascinated to find out whether President Milei will be able to deliver on some of the rather ambitious promises that he made in his election campaign. I understand that, following the rhetoric of campaigning, some of the reality of his being in presidential office will be slightly different.
We also have opportunities, when we see so much conflict in the world, to look on our partners in Latin America as partners in peacebuilding as well as in dialogue and facilitation, especially when it comes to transitional justice and security sector reform. I do not think we as a partner consider them enough.
I also believe strongly that we can do a lot more with our parliamentary dialogue and relationships. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has been such a stalwart of the inter-parliamentary union, and we have the ParlAmericas network. I would love the UK to be playing a stronger role with the ParlAmericas network, and for there to be UK and ParlAmericas initiatives in many of the areas where parliamentarians can take things forward. There have been sensitivities and difficulties—for example, in Ecuador, where the Parliament was suspended for political purposes. As the noble Baroness rightly highlighted, we now see a centrist president there, and some stability.
Political instability was raised. To take just one country: five Prime Ministers in seven years, seven Foreign Secretaries in seven years—but enough of the United Kingdom. More importantly, we have had a change every year in the Minister responsible for Latin America. I am delighted that we have the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the resilient soul that he is, to speak for us. We have now discovered the only region of the world he is not responsible for—I think. To be a predictable and reliable partner at a ministerial level is really important. If only the others could be as dependable as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in that regard.
I have some closing remarks. Mercosur has been mentioned, and I have been keeping a watching brief with regard to both President Macron and the EU position. I find myself in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on that. I have come here from moving amendments in the CPTPP Committee to be in this debate this afternoon. The opportunities that presents are very important, but in order for that to be operationalised, our businesses need support to understand the markets and trade freely.
In my last minute, I will pick up on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referenced. Two weeks ago, I was in the Falkland Islands. It was made clear to me that China is operating very assertively in that area. As of today, there are 500 Chinese vessels fishing on the very boundary of British territorial waters in the Falkland Islands, for the squid market. That is a market to the European Union, and in order for Falklands Islands’ fishing vessels to access the European market—because of our Brexit agreement—they have to be Spanish flagged. The UK’s relationship with South America and the direct interest we have touches on geopolitics—especially with China. That is why these relationships are so very important.
In my last seconds, I will close by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when she closed her speech in the last full debate we had, in 2010:
“This debate underlines the importance of Latin America and Latin American countries. We have got to get our act together … Let us start that today, not mañana”.—[Official Report, 24/6/10; col. 1456.]
That was 13 years ago. We have to do this, because we cannot now afford not to listen to the noble Baroness. I hope the Minister will have some reassuring words when he responds.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this debate. It has been a great pleasure to participate in many debates on this subject with her, and she has been incredibly active in promoting better economic and cultural relationships with the region.
The Integrated Review 2021 of security, defence, development and foreign policy set out some clear aims for working with the region. It focused on developing strong partnerships based on shared democratic values, inclusive and resilient growth, free trade and mutual interest in tackling serious and organised crime and corruption—including, of course, the drugs trade. In May 2023, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when in Chile, said that the UK recognised that multilateral institutions needed to become more representative. He said that he wanted to work with the countries of the region to effect that change. One example he gave was supporting Brazil’s bid to sit as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Brazil has been elected more than 10 times to the Security Council and is currently a member. I would like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, as the Minister for the United Nations, to tell us what sort of progress he thinks we can make on these changes. Certainly, on this side of the House we are committed to support such a change.
The then Foreign Secretary also said in Chile that we need to do more on trade. In this debate, we have heard particular reference made to Canning House, which produced a report suggesting that the previous government initiative in 2010 had delivered mixed results. I would be keen to hear from the Minister exactly how we can improve the situation. The CPTPP is an opportunity we would welcome; we hope that we can see some positive developments there, particularly with Chile, Mexico and Peru being active members, but others may wish to join.
With at least 23% of the world’s tropical forests, 30% of global reserves of freshwater and 25% of the world’s cultivable land, the region is also a vital partner in tackling climate change and restoring biodiversity. This year’s integrated review refresh highlighted that climate change and biodiversity loss are important multipliers of other global threats and are guaranteed to continue to worsen over the next decade. Six of the 10 top risks in the 10 years ahead identified by the World Economic Forum relate to climate, the environment and nature. The consequences are both acute and chronic significant setbacks to progress in achieving the 2030 agenda on the sustainable development goals—the Minister will know that I have raised this point.
The OECD has also pointed to structural issues. It said that these included
“fragile social protection systems; low productivity; weak institutions; and an environmentally unsustainable development model”.
The OECD also said:
“A systemic green and just transition could help the region overcome its development ‘traps’ and strengthen its resilience while improving Latin Americans’ well-being”.
Exactly what steps are we in the United Kingdom taking to ensure that we support those objectives? As of 2017 it was estimated, as my noble friend mentioned, that the region contained 60% of global lithium reserves, over 30% of global copper and 32% of global nickel and silver. These climate-related shocks will pose important challenges over the short and medium term.
The welcome return to office, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said, of President Lula in October 2022 represents positive news for climate policy, in particular for protection of the Amazon. Brazil has a vital role to play in the world’s response to the climate crisis, especially as it prepares to host COP 30. How will the Government work with counterparts in Brazil over the next year—or possibly until the general election—to ensure that COP 30 is a success?
In respect of that, there is also the news, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, of the election in Argentina of Milei, a self-described anarcho-capitalist. Milei promised a range of things, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, but it is unclear whether he will have the legislative support to pass such policies. In a response to a Commons Written Question, the FCDO stated that the Government are keen to develop and strengthen our collaboration with President-elect Milei’s Administration. Can the Minister elaborate a bit more on that? In particular, how will the United Kingdom engage with Argentina on the vital issues of climate change leading up to Brazil hosting COP 30?
Of course, the integrated review also mentioned the continued defence of the UK’s sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and ensuring that the interests of the 3,500 people who live there are protected in line with the principle of self-determination. I hope the noble Lord can reiterate that position, especially in relation to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Reference has been made in the debate to the referendum in Venezuela on Sunday 3 December 2023 regarding Essequibo; it is clearly provocative and counterproductive, does nothing to support good neighbourly relations with Guyana and has understandably caused unrest and anxiety among the citizens there. The referendum threatens the border agreement that was settled over 120 years ago, with the International Court of Justice ruling on Friday prohibiting Venezuela from taking any action. It is essential that international law is upheld, so will the Minister tell us how we are supporting that position and how we are monitoring the situation in Guyana?
I briefly turn to Colombia, where President Petro was elected on a “total peace” promise last year. Since then, kidnappings have increased by more than 80% and extortion is up 27%. Violence in Colombia can be felt in Britain, as we saw last month by the kidnapping of the father of the Liverpool football player, Luis Díaz. I know the Minister is aware of this, so what are we doing to support President Petro in his peace bid? I know that over many years we have given financial and physical support or specialist support in this effort, but I hope the Minister can briefly update us on what we are doing.
Finally, I turn to Haiti and the intervention of my noble friend Lord Griffiths here. We have had discussions about the situation in Haiti and the desperate need for support. I think my noble friend raised, maybe unintentionally, a really important question about Haiti being laden with such debt. The White Paper on international development was launched very recently by the Minister, Andrew Mitchell, and I do not think anyone in this House will object to its contents. But on debt restructuring and the positive impact that can have on development, it did not really suggest any radical solutions. I hope the Minister can take my noble friend’s comments away and focus on how Haiti can benefit from a much more radical proposition on debt relief.
I think, with those comments, I will leave the last 15 seconds for the noble Lord to add to his own contribution so that the debate is not terminated too early.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the 15 seconds and I have used them up already. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions and join, rightly, in praising and recognising the long service of my noble friend Lady Hooper. I pay tribute to her for tabling this debate and for her work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Panama.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned that his place on the Order Paper had changed. There may be a general election on the horizon, but I fear that his place on the Order Paper may remain much the same—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
You never know. That really is going to be a question. Anyway, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we have used up more than 15 seconds. I also acknowledge the presence of Their Excellencies the Ambassadors of both Costa Rica and Peru. I praise my noble friend Lady Hooper for her timing. Yes, I am not the Minister for South America, but I have just come back from there. I was in Colombia with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh, and I will come on to that in a moment.
It is appropriate, right at the start, to declare one’s interests. As my noble friend Lord Effingham declared the interests of his wife, I have to declare that my sister-in-law, as the ambassador knows, is Peruvian, so I assure him that in the Ahmad household, Peru is a subject that we often talk about.
This, as my noble friend Lord Naseby recognised, is also an important anniversary for many countries in Latin America: it marks the 200th anniversary of our relationship with many countries in that region. Our modern-day partnerships are founded on our shared values. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly said about the integrated review, those four key pillars of values, climate, trade and security are very much the cornerstone, and we continue to be focused on those.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about the importance of values, which are central. Many but not all countries in South America are democracies and we need to work with them to build enduring friendships. I say at the outset that my noble friend Lady Hooper’s timing is impeccable, because we face challenges and a new President in the region. First, I turn to the situation in Guyana and Venezuela. As Minister for the UN, in every General Assembly high-level week I have often attended the appropriate meeting and restated the UK’s position that the border was settled in 1899 through international arbitration. That remains the case, but I know that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary is very focused on this and I assure the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Collins and Lord Brennan, my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that we are very seized of the current situation. I know this would have been a focus of my noble friend’s recent discussions in Washington.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, talk about sanctions. He knows that I cannot go further on that, but I can share with him that the UK has sanctioned 41 Venezuelans under our Venezuelan autonomous global human rights and anti-corruption frameworks. We do not have sectoral sanctions on Venezuela and I am not going to speculate further, but of course we are watching the situation very carefully.
On the issue of President-elect Milei’s success in Argentina, I am sure I speak for the whole House in congratulating him on his election as the next President. As fellow G20 members, we look forward to developing a strong relationship. It is interesting that one of the first actions he announced was to cut back on government departments: he is taking it down to eight, I was reading. We have a long history with Argentina, of course, and we are keen that our constructive collaboration continues. For the record, I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, that the UK Government have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands—I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was there recently—and indeed that extends to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as well. The UK Government are absolutely committed to proactively defending Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination and that will remain the case. I am confident, irrespective of what Government are in place, that that will be a long-standing commitment to the people of the Falkland Islands from the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised several issues about mining concerns in Peru and Colombia. I listened very carefully to her. We are supporting the development of the first National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security in Colombia, and that builds on ensuring that communities can grow and thrive. As her Royal Highness and I saw directly, this also extends to the point the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised about soft power. I attended a fashion show where the designers were those who had survived the conflict, including from indigenous communities. They were using recyclable material to present a new option and a new sectoral development in Colombia itself.
We were of course focused on our support since the 2016 peace agreement. I also had the opportunity to meet President Santos to get his insights. We remain, as the penholder, very focused on ensuring that the peace agreement is seen through to the end point with the new President. I am acutely aware that challenges remain within the country, and the issue of security in many parts of Colombia remains very much a focus of our attention, as well as of the new Government.
I was going to say a lot about Peru but my noble friend Lord Effingham summed it up holistically; he talked about many elements. We are proud of our relationship with Peru. In October this year, we celebrated its 200th anniversary. I also join in the tribute to my honourable friend in the Foreign Office, the Minister for South America, David Rutley, who attended various events. The UK fully supports the Peruvian Government, the constitutional process and the strengthening of Peruvian democracy, and we will continue to focus on this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised various issues regarding the bilateral trade treaty. If I may, I will write to her about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about the importance of soft power. I agree with him totally. One of the biggest British Council establishments anywhere in the world is in Colombia. I met with the new head of the British Council in South America about some of key educational programmes for many of the indigenous communities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, reminded us, most Latin American countries are functioning democracies that share our commitment to human rights and regularly vote with us in international fora. That is important: the UN matters when we come across key battlegrounds with other countries, as we have on issues of Ukraine, and support from our South American partners has been extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, when talking about trade, asked specifically about the BII. He is correct that it is not making funding available in Latin America, but I asked our trade team quite specifically about the use of UK Export Finance in this regard. It is underleveraged, and we need to look at new opportunities to make funding available. I agree with the noble Lord and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about the opportunities that exist, particularly around the transport system. As a former Transport Minister, I remember the opportunities that exist in rail and metro systems, for example, within South America.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said he would widen the debate to the Caribbean. I was Minister for the Caribbean once, to paraphrase one of my new colleagues on the Front Benches when he talked about the future. I do not know what the future holds, but I was totally immersed in the Caribbean region and the opportunities those countries present. Many of them are Commonwealth partners. The noble Lord rightly drew our attention to Haiti. He asked for innovative thinking; as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, suggested, I will take that back. We have some great, inspirational leaders in the Caribbean, no less than the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, who is a great champion of accessible finance for small island developing states. On Haiti specifically, the United Kingdom has a direct interest: our territory, Turks and Caicos, is impacted by the challenges in Haiti and we work closely with the US on security concerns. I will come back to the noble Lord on other, more innovative suggestions when it comes to that patch, after discussions with colleagues.
I will turn briefly to trade. The total value of imports and exports to Latin America rocketed by more than 45% last year to more than £40 billion. Yet, as noble Lords have pointed out, the region still represents only 2% of UK imports and 2.5% of UK exports. We are, of course, not the only country that sees the potential; several noble Lords talked about China’s strong and growing economic footprint and how that underpins its influence. It is now the region’s largest trading partner. We have to realise that, which is why the issues of soft power are important, as well as increasing trade.
My noble friend Lord Naseby talked about Chile. He will pleased to know that, as well as the UK-central America association agreement, the Government have signed trade agreements with the Andean region and Chile, and we are making progress on negotiations with Mexico. In July, we finalised accession procedures for joining the CPTPP. This sets the stage for deeper trade investment tie-ins with Morocco, Peru and Chile as founding members. My noble friend Lady Hooper talked about the accession of other countries, including Costa Rica; I know that Ecuador and Uruguay are also interested.
The question of future accessions is of course under discussion, so it would be inappropriate to comment any further. All such CPTPP discussions are taken by consensus, but my noble friend makes a strong case.
Over the next decade, we will aim to eliminate further market access barriers and sign agreements with countries around the region, supporting growing trade and investment in sectors of strategic importance and special interest. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the issue of Mercosur. Brazil and other Mercosur countries are important trading partners to the UK, and the UK wants to pursue a high-quality FTA in the future in this respect. We are clear, though, that trade should not be at the expense of environmental or climate commitments. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, reminded us of the importance of those issues.
My noble friend Lord Effingham raised various issues. I was very much seized of the issue of superfood production in Peru and the wider region. As I said, I have a family interest in this regard. My sister-in-law is a great advocate of such exports and certainly keeps telling me to increase my intake. I believe that Peru exported a record 286 million tonnes of fresh blueberries in 2022-23—the largest such export in the world. UK-based Cocogreen, a cleantech innovator in sustainable agritech products, is now exporting to the region, with deals with world-beating superfood producers in Mexico and Peru worth almost £60 million in the coming years. Again, this debate illustrates the importance of widening the debate, and of our own learnings and education.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Brennan, raised the vital issue of lithium, as did my noble friends Lord Effingham and Lord Naseby. We recognise the critical importance of Latin America’s minerals to the global transition to a green economy, and we are working with the so-called lithium triangle countries—Argentina, Chile and Bolivia—which together own almost 60% of the world’s lithium resources. This is vital to the global transition to a green economy, as is lithium battery R&D through the Faraday Institution. However, I should add that in mining cobalt—experience lends itself to this—we should bear in mind the importance of ensuring that vulnerable communities are not impacted. That is an important value that we must sustain. The UK shares many similar values with countries in the region in this respect.
I have been told that I have only 60 seconds left, even though my time has already been curtailed, but I just want to make a few key points on the climate. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised important issues about the Inter-American Development Bank, which is the largest source of development finance to Latin America and the Caribbean, providing over $18 billion last year. The issue of climate is an important element of our work with South America, and I am delighted that Latin American countries will be big beneficiaries of the UK’s £2 billion contribution, announced in September by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to the Green Climate Fund. It is our largest single climate funding commitment. We are lobbying the Inter-American Development Bank to provide greater volumes and quality of climate finance. We have partnerships under the Amazonia Forever initiative and we are keen supporters of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, among others, mentioned Brazil, which is a key partner. It led the UN considerably during its tenure of the Security Council. Personally, I was disappointed that its efforts, particularly on the issue of Gaza, did not bring more returns. However, our partnership is strong, and we value it.
The issue of security also came up. We are working very closely on the 2016 peace agreement in Colombia. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised about the narcotics issues and challenges in South America. Unfortunately, South America is the most violent region in the world outside of conflict situations, with 8.4% of the world’s population but around 30% of global homicides. I will end my comments by saying that we are continuing our focus on this issue with colleagues across the National Crime Agency and the Border Force; it will be a key element of our focus on strengthening our relationships across all four key pillars. We have delivered over £10 million from our global stability and security fund to Latin American countries—for example, to counter illicit finance.
Other questions have been raised. My noble friend raised issues about UK visas; I will write to her specifically on that.
Today’s debate has illustrated the importance of South America to this House and our country as a whole. The UK is leaning on our lengthy and strong partnerships with Latin American countries to boost economic growth, promote close security and climate co-operation. In that regard, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that my noble friend has played an important part.