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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you very much for bringing us all together at the carol concert yesterday, as you always do? I trust that this next hour will also be in keeping with the season of good will.
We are delivering record rail investment in the east of England, including upgrading the midland main line, a new station at Cambridge South, improvements at Ely and Horley junctions to increase passenger and freight capacity, and a new railway connecting eastern towns and cities to Oxford, which will deliver transformational growth across the region.
Alistair Strathern
Wixams new town in my constituency was built in the perfect location for rail connectivity, but over a decade after moving into their homes, residents are still waiting for a start date to be confirmed, let alone for a station to open. Will the Minister work with local stakeholders and Network Rail to get sign-off for that line and ensure that my residents can finally enjoy the rail connectivity that they were promised?
Huw Merriman
I am happy to give that commitment to work with the residents. Indeed, I recently spoke to the Mayor of Bedford on that exact point. We are working at pace to get the station delivered. There are also funding requirements that involve the local region, which have been agreed to previously, and we are keen to make progress.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend has referred to the Horley junction and Ely junction developments, which came as very welcome news in October. The Horley junction development, in particular, is a very small project. It would be excellent to get a starting date agreed for next year, with the business case sorted out, recognising how that could improve resilience not only for passengers, but for freight and the port of Felixstowe.
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend has been an absolute champion for that project, as have other hon. Friends present. We are keen to make progress. The Secretary of State and I were very keen to see the project brought in, which was possible only because of the Prime Minister’s decisions on Network North in October. We are looking to make rapid progress on it, and I have heard my right hon. Friend’s call and will work to that speed.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
The Government are committed to reforming the railways and ensuring that they are customer focused and commercially led, with the creation of Great British Railways to bring together infrastructure, operations and oversight of whole-industry finance. In the interim, the Department continues to hold the rail industry to account to deliver the punctual and reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve.
Richard Foord
In November last year, services on the west of England line out of London terminated at Axminster because of a land slip near Honiton. The same line has been closed for nine days this month, and passengers at Feniton are unable to travel to Exeter or London. Will the Minister ease the delays and cancellations for passengers in Honiton by dualling the track from Chard Junction to Axminster and adding a passing loop?
Huw Merriman
With the Prime Minister’s Network North commitment, £36 billion-worth of transport projects will be going ahead in other parts. I am happy to look at the project to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should also mention that I am aware that there have been problems on the western and Wales routes, particularly those coming out of Paddington. The chief executive of Network Rail is also well aware of those problems and is taking action to ensure that we remedy the situation.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
So many families in Pembrokeshire have sons and daughters working away or studying all over the country who will want to get home this Christmas. With such poor rail services into Wales, what assurances has the Minister had from companies such as Great Western Railway that they will stop putting on five-carriage trains when they should be running 10 carriages; that they will have a full roster of drivers available in the days ahead, so that we can have a full complement of services running; and that services will not be cut short in places such as Swansea and Carmarthen, leaving my constituents stranded late at night?
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. With Christmas eve and new year’s eve falling on Sundays this year, the team at GWR had to approach the Department because drivers were requesting additional payments for driving trains on those Sundays, as Sunday is still not part of a working seven-day week on the railway. We have delivered on that commitment, but the fundamental reform point remains: we need ASLEF and other trade unions to ensure that we have a modern railway that works seven days a week. I can give him an assurance that everything is being done, but a lot more could be done if we could reform with the unions’ co-operation.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
What role does the Northern Transport Acceleration Council have in Network North?
Huw Merriman
Being straight, transparent and open, I will write to the hon. Member and give him that detail, rather than attempt to make it up at Christmas time.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Until fairly recently, Northern Trains provided a Saturdays-only service between Sheffield and Cleethorpes via Brigg. That has now changed to one train a day, five days a week, allowing people only an hour and a half to enjoy the shopping in Grimsby or the excellent resort of Cleethorpes. Could my hon. Friend look into this matter and contact me after speaking with Northern Trains?
Huw Merriman
Yes, I will do so. We have discussed that service before and are looking at a timetable alteration for the future. I will ensure that is looked at with my hon. Friend’s point very much in mind.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Transport Committee, with which the Minister is fairly familiar, heard evidence last week that, thanks to the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 to Manchester and the inability of high-speed rolling stock to tilt on the remaining west coast main line track, journey times to and from Glasgow could actually increase by up to 24 minutes, even with the £50 billion Birmingham to London branch line complete. Does the Minister think that passengers in Scotland will see that as yet another Union connectivity dividend?
Huw Merriman
No, I do not agree. In fact, when that matter came up at the Public Accounts Committee, the official who works on HS2 was able to explain that, where trains tilt, they can do so at certain speeds on the west coast main line. However, that does not actually require a tilting train: any train can go at that speed, provided the speed is on the train. HS2 trains will also have faster acceleration, so I dispute the hon. Member’s point.
Mr Speaker
Some trains on the west coast main line would be more helpful, I think.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
Mr Speaker, before responding, given that these are the last Transport questions of the year, may I put on record my gratitude to the staff of the House, and also to those across the transport sector who will be working tirelessly across the Christmas period to ensure that families can get together and goods can keep moving?
As part of the Prime Minister’s Network North plan, the Government are providing a record funding increase of £8.3 billion for local highways maintenance over the next decade, which will enable local highway authorities to resurface roads up and down the country.
Marco Longhi
Potholes are a scourge everywhere, so I am not only very grateful for the additional Government funding, but very impressed by the responsiveness and the quality of work by Dudley Council’s highways department. Will the Secretary of State agree to visit Dudley, and would he support tighter contracting frameworks by local authorities so that utility companies and others are made to pay for all the consequences of their substandard work?
Mr Harper
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, including for telling us about the good work that his local authority is doing to improve the quality of local roads. Utility companies already have legal duties to ensure that their works and reinstatements are to required standards. Earlier this year, we introduced a new performance-based street works regime to crack down on the worst performing companies leaving behind poor road surface repairs that can lead to more potholes. Those with higher failure rates are now inspected more often and are charged for it, so companies are incentivised to carry out good-quality reinstatements first time and to repair existing defects.
Eddie Hughes
As a civil engineer, I am always excited to hear about more money being spent on the highways, but is the Secretary of State aware of the Pothole Pro? This is a machine, developed by Staffordshire-based JCB, that can allegedly repair a pothole in as little as eight minutes. Should that sort of technology be rolled out across the country so that we do not just spend more money, but spend it more effectively?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of tools to deliver increased productivity so that we get more for what we spend. I was lucky enough to visit JCB myself and see the Pothole Pro in action, as well as the innovative work it is doing, as a fantastic world leader in innovation, on some of its hydrogen engines for its mobile off-road machinery. I am sure that local councils will look carefully at the Pothole Pro and other technologies that can help us make the best use of that record investment in road improvements.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that we all want good roads, but we also want safe roads. Can I draw his attention to the dreadful road accidents killing young people recently? Is he aware that over the last 13 years, from being one of the safest places in the world in terms of road safety and deaths on the roads, we are steadily becoming very bad indeed? Will he do something about that, if he can?
Mr Harper
I of course share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the deaths of anyone on the roads, but particularly of young people. I do not recognise the characterisation he has set out. Our road safety record remains one of the best in the world. [Interruption.] Well, it does. The Department spends a great deal of resource on campaigns to get people to drive more safely, and we do that when we are engineering and delivering new roads. Safety is one of the very important things that we think about as we design and roll out new road infrastructure.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Northern is developing a final business case for a new fleet that will bring new trains to my hon. Friend’s route, and include options for greener technology such as batteries. We are also working with the Great British Railways transition team to assess options to decarbonise the whole network.
Simon Fell
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be delighted to know that, for once, I am going to ask not about the quality of service on the Furness line, but rather about capacity. The Government recently announced, through the Network North deal, the electrification of the energy coast line. That will take 150 million tonnes of freight off that line every year and is hugely welcome. Through the SSN-AUKUS programme and the Dreadnought programme, and the doubling of the size of the shipyard in Barrow, a similar amount of freight will be needed going the other way. Will the Minister meet me and the wider Team Barrow board to discuss the merits of electrifying the Furness line?
Huw Merriman
As my hon. Friend knows, my officials are active members of Team Barrow, alongside the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and local partners, recognising the national significance of the submarine programme. Work is ongoing, looking at improvements to the A590, and at options for the rail industry to improve the local rail network. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
After four years in Parliament, this is my maiden voyage at the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is Christmas come early, and it is a gift that the first question I am asked comes from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The UK sustainable aviation fuel mandate is on track to start on 1 January 2025, with preparatory work on secondary legislation progressing well. We recognise that final decisions on the parameters of the mandate must be taken in a timely way to provide certainty for investment decisions, and we will publish those as soon as possible.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in his endeavours. It is always a pleasure to see some of the 2019 intake elevated to the Front Bench, so very well done. I thank him for his answer, as the issue of sustainable aviation fuel is important for my constituents. To ensure that we do not overshoot climate targets on the road to jet zero or net zero, will the Government consider introducing the SAF mandate under a greenhouse gas intensity scheme? That is quite a technical question, but I know it is one that the Minister is well up to answering.
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I more normally get asked concerns about whether we are going to undershoot the target, rather than overshoot it, but it is a valid question. It is important for us that we are introducing the SAF mandate, and we must give certainty to the industry so that investment comes in. We have funded 13 different companies to set up SAF plants or do development, but we are looking at all the different options and nothing is off the table. We will consider all the different proposals and publish our response to the second consultation as soon as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Government’s plans to have five sustainable aviation fuel plants under construction by 2025 look doomed. We are falling behind competitors who have a head start on SAF infrastructure, and with hydrogen likely to be the dominant fuel source for aviation beyond SAFs, we also need hydrogen infrastructure. Grangemouth currently supplies Scottish airports with fuel, and has the right feedstocks and infrastructure to turn waste and renewable electricity into jet fuel. What are the Government doing to save Grangemouth as part of a just transition to net zero, and when will we see plans for a contract for difference-type scheme for SAFs?
Anthony Browne
As I outlined in my previous answer, with SAFs we are generating a whole new industry. It is happening across the world. I spoke at the International Civil Aviation Organisation conference in Dubai, and to aviation Ministers from around the world, and all are trying to promote this industry. We are probably more advanced here than anywhere else in the country, and as I mentioned, we are funding 13 different schemes to get the industry going. I will meet SAF producers in the next couple of days, and we want information from them about what is needed. What is needed is certainty, and there are benefits from across the country in both Scotland and England. There are huge economic benefits from this, and it could create many thousands of jobs.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
This Government recognise that most journeys in this country are made by car, and that is why we are providing comprehensive support for motorists through our plan for drivers, which includes a package of measures to improve traffic flow, and also through the £8.3 billion investment in road resurfacing. That historic investment in road condition will benefit all road users, as we have set out in earlier answers.
Sir Greg Knight
Despite the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister saying that the war against the motorist is over, is he aware that many Labour local authorities have not got the message, with unwanted low-traffic neighbourhoods in place, unjustified 20 mph speed limits being proposed and traffic lights phased deliberately to delay traffic flows, causing added pollution? Will he consider giving advice to local authorities that they should do all they can to improve traffic flows and not disrupt them because of some misguided dogma against the motorist?
Mr Harper
My right hon. Friend is right: we are pro-driver, but also pro- public transport and pro-active travel, and those things are about giving people better choices and making sure that councils do not deliver anti-driver traffic management measures. The network management duty requires local authorities to manage their roads as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all road users, including drivers, which some of them forget from time to time. We have also announced new funding totalling £40 million specifically for improvements to traffic lights to keep local roads moving, including deploying machine learning and artificial intelligence to optimise traffic flow to get cars moving.
Greg Smith
The plan for drivers clearly shows that this Government are on the side of Britain’s motorists, but there is one missing link, which is rural roads. When a rural road is closed by a utility company or others, the diversion is not just a quick five minutes, but often half an hour or 40 minutes. Buckinghamshire Council tells me that the current fines system is just too low and the utility companies shrug it off. Can my right hon. Friend take real action to ensure that councils can properly fine utility companies when they disrupt rural communities?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point that I am well aware of, representing a rural constituency myself. Some of the benefits of investment in infrastructure such as broadband do bring with them traffic disruption. One of the things we have put in place, as I mentioned in an earlier answer, is the change to make sure that good utility companies will have much less inspection and much less cost involved in delivery. Those utility companies that leave behind a mess, and therefore cause that disruption over and over again, will face more inspections and more costs, incentivising them to do a better job for his and my constituents.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I welcome my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) to his place on the Front Bench. For the past two years, part of the guided busway in Cambridge has been closed due to a complex legal wrangle with the Health and Safety Executive. It has meant that buses are snarled up and motorists and bus users have had thousands and thousands of hours of wasted time. Will the Minister meet me to try to find a way to resolve this issue speedily and get Cambridge moving?
Mr Harper
I am not familiar with the specific situation that the hon. Gentleman raises about a dispute with the Health and Safety Executive. I will of course make sure that the relevant Minister meets him to deal with this issue. I have to say that my previous experience of Cambridge City Council was that it was tending to implement policies such as its congestion charging scheme, which it has now had to drop because it was so unpopular. It was not focused on getting traffic moving, but being against the interests of road users. I am glad that he welcomes that change.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Leeds is one of the most congested cities in the country, mainly because it is the largest city in Europe without a rail-based public transport system. Why do the Government have such contempt for the citizens of Leeds? When will we see a decent public transport system in our city?
Mr Harper
That is an extraordinary question, given that the Government have, in the Network North announcement that the Prime Minister made, put aside £2.5 billion for a mass transit system in Leeds so that Leeds no longer remains one of the largest cities in Europe without one. I have to say that that investment in Leeds to benefit his constituents is possible only because of the choice that this Government made to cancel the second phase of HS2 and to spend the money on that mass transit system in Leeds. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not welcome that significant investment for his constituents.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
As of October 2023, a total of £573 million had been spent acquiring land and property assets on phase 2. That includes all property asset types, such as plots of land, farmland, farms, commercial property and domestic property. Any land and property asset that is no longer required will be sold, and a programme is being developed to do that.
Andrew Gwynne
Data from the High-Speed Rail Group suggests that the Government’s fire sale of land on the former Birmingham to Manchester stretch of HS2 will cost taxpayers a staggering £100 million. But they are not content with wasting taxpayers’ money and denying us the high-speed rail in the north that we deserve; Denton and Reddish is not even set to benefit from local rail improvements. That would not be hard—I have one train a week serving Denton and Reddish South stations. Why?
Huw Merriman
I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that report, because it is completely wrong. For a start, it states that £205 million has been spent on land and property, which is wrong—it is a different figure.
Huw Merriman
I just stated exactly what it is, if the hon. Lady had listened to my answer. We have published exactly how much has been spent: on phase 2a it was £273 million, and on phase 2b it was £201 million. Property and land will be sold only when it is right to do so, ensuring good value for the taxpayer and the communities where the property is sold.
Sarah Edwards
It is my understanding that HS2 trains are designed for new tracks rather than the current Victorian-era infrastructure. Surely, that incompatibility will result in HS2 trains running slower and in fewer trains per hour for my constituents. Can the Minister explain how decreased capacity across the network, slower trains and reduced services will be better for my constituents?
Huw Merriman
Again, that is not the case at all. HS2 trains will be built to run across the network that they will travel on. I made the point previously that on the parts of the west coast main line where tilting trains go faster, HS2 trains will also be able to go at that faster speed. As a result, the journey time to Manchester will come down from two hours and 12 minutes to one hour and 40 minutes, leading to a faster service for all, Mr Speaker.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As the Minister will know, I very much welcome the decision on phase 2 of HS2. However, there is still an impact on many land and property owners in Staffordshire. We heard in the Transport Committee that it could take up to two years to get land back to those owners. Will my hon. Friend look into this urgently to ensure that those property owners—particularly farmers, who need to know when they can sow their crops—get that land back as soon as possible?
Huw Merriman
In the words of Take That, I ask my hon. Friend for a little patience. It will take time to develop a programme to ensure that we deliver value for money for the taxpayer and do not disrupt local property markets. We will engage with the affected communities throughout the process. Where land can be rented back out and therefore put to use—farming is a good example —that is happening right now, and we will ensure that that happens even more so now that we have certainty about HS2.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
Between July and September, Ministers admitted that tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had been spent on HS2 land, at the same time that the Prime Minister was planning to cancel the project. Now, Ministers plan to flog that same land at a huge loss. Even the party that crashed the economy is still able to find unique ways to fleece the taxpayer. Will the Minister explain what safeguards he will put in place to protect the land and taxpayers’ money from this ill-judged and costly fire sale?
Huw Merriman
Despite what I said about this being the season of good will, quite frankly that is complete and utter nonsense. As I have stated, there will be a very careful analysis of the property that will be released. The Crichel Down rules require tests to be met, and only once they are will we return the property to the original owner at its market value. This will be done properly. We have delivered certainty: we have said that the route will not go ahead. What I am sure everyone along the line of the route would like to know is whether HS2 would go ahead under the Labour Transport team, or whether it would not, because of the Labour Treasury team. Give them some certainty.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
The UK ETS Authority will publish a second consultation on the implementation of the UK ETS in 2024. We welcome any evidence in response to the consultation. We will publish a full analysis of the policy’s impact in the Government’s response to the consultation. The Department has not yet conducted a full assessment of the implications for domestic ferries.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He may be aware that there are many in the shipping industry who are concerned that including lifeline ferry services, such as those that serve my constituency, in the emissions trading scheme could hinder rather than help the process of decarbonisation. The EU has already recognised that by giving its lifeline ferry services a derogation until 2030. Will the shipping Minister—I know it is not this Minister’s responsibility—engage with operators in Scotland and elsewhere to ensure that we are not hit by the law of unintended consequences?
Anthony Browne
I very much welcome that question. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is a doughty champion for ferries in those islands and I know how important ferry services are for residents there. We have been very careful, across our transport decarbonisation plan, not to damage industries or sectors. We have given many billions of pounds in support for the whole range of different transport sectors and domestic ferries are very much a part of that. I am very happy to engage with the sector and to meet him to ensure that the ferries can carry on transporting passengers throughout Orkney, Shetland and elsewhere in the British Isles.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I smile because I am welcoming the Minister to his place perhaps half a dozen Ministers since I first stood at the Dispatch Box—but the best of luck to him in the time ahead. [Laughter.]
Decarbonising maritime will require unprecedented investment in UK technologies, with visionary policy and regulatory frameworks that limit ships’ emissions and mandate the use of clean fuels. When will the Government follow the advice issued by the Transport Committee in June and streamline the muddle of 184 recommendations it set for itself in “Maritime 2050”? Speaking of which, we were promised a refreshed “Maritime 2050” in 2023 by one of the Secretary of State’s many predecessors. There are a handful of days left. Where is it?
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I am going to call his warm words—it is Christmas, a time to forgive and forget. The clean maritime plan is being refreshed and we will publish it as soon as possible. We are taking in and analysing a very wide range of evidence from a wide range of different people. The Government are committed to the whole “Maritime 2050” plan, and we are investing over £200 million in the UK SHORE programme to help fund research and development to make shipping decarbonise.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
Aside from the £1 billion investment in Network North, my hon. Friend will be aware that the single biggest connectivity project in his community is the Northumberland line, a groundbreaking railway line that will connect Blyth and the surrounding cities to Newcastle.
Ian Levy
I am delighted consultation has now taken place regarding a relief road for Blyth, which is badly needed. As a result of the proposed plans, which could see the closure of an existing road and the rerouting of residents along a new road, many residents of Cramlington could see their journey times increase. Keeping the existing road open would address that, as well as save money. Will my hon. Friend agree to look at that again and see whether it could be achieved?
Guy Opperman
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Northumberland County Council, post the consultation.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Ten years ago, David Higgins, the then chair of HS2, said that connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester was worse than between any other major cities in Europe. Since then, Sheffield’s connection with Manchester airport has been scrapped. We had a review of a tunnel under the Pennines. That tunnel got shorter and shorter until it finally disappeared altogether. Can the Minister say in what way—if any, because I do not think there have been any—transport links between Sheffield and Manchester have improved while this Government have been in power?
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a substantial amount of electrification is taking place. He will also be aware of the city regional sustainable settlement, which will provide significant investment in the north.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Margaret Beckett is not here. Will the Secretary of State answer the question as though she were, so that I can call the shadow Minister?
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
My officials and I have held regular meetings with senior management at Alstom. We have also convened, under my direction, a cross-Whitehall group to advise on ways to support continued production at Derby, and on how best to support the workers who could lose their jobs. This must be a commercial decision for Alstom, but the Government have been working with the company to explore every option to enable it to continue manufacturing at its Derby site, and local Members in Derby—including the fantastic colleague sitting beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway)—have been raising these issues with me regularly, effectively representing their constituents.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Three years ago, the Government hailed the deal to manufacture HS2 trains in Britain as putting the country
“firmly at the forefront of the high speed rail revolution”.
Today, the jobs of the skilled people who work in that industry and build those trains in Derby and Newton Aycliffe are at risk. There are just days left to find a solution. Will the Secretary of State, specifically, meet Hitachi and Alstom as a matter of urgency? Does he accept that if Ministers fail to act in the coming days, the final legacy of this shambolic Government will be thousands of skilled jobs lost and HS2 trains built abroad?
Mr Harper
I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman. He wrote to my hon. Friend the Rail Minister on 17 November, asking a series of, I am afraid, quite ill-informed questions. I sent him a comprehensive reply on 24 November, which I note he has not chosen to publicise. He tries to pretend that our decision on HS2 has something to do with this. I made it quite clear that Alstom’s contract with Hitachi—their joint venture to design, build and maintain HS2 trains—is for phase 1 only. Phase 1 of HS2 is continuing. That position was reiterated by Alstom group’s chief executive in his commentary on its recent results. I have met both Alstom and Hitachi regularly since the decision on Network North. I am afraid that Alstom’s problems predate our decision on HS2, and the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to play party politics on this incredibly serious matter, on which the Government are working very hard on a cross-party basis with the companies and the trade unions, is beneath him.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I regularly engage with Cabinet colleagues on Government policy, including migration, and my Department works closely with organisations across the transport industry to understand the sector’s concerns about the transport labour market.
Steven Bonnar
The driver shortage in the UK is far from over and, according to sector insiders, a “tipping point” is looming. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 6,000 fewer delivery and courier drivers in the UK in 2023 than in the previous year, and more than half the UK’s HGV drivers are due to retire in the next decade. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that this ticking time bomb does not blow up in our face as happened during the period following Brexit? Surely migration is part of the solution.
Mr Harper
It is disappointing that the SNP’s first response to any tightness in the labour market is to want to import people from abroad. My colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, along with the fantastic officials in that Department and our jobcentre network, is ensuring that we provide skills training for those who are already in the United Kingdom so that we can deal with the skills shortages, as we did so effectively in the case of HGV drivers when, during and following the pandemic, we worked rapidly to get more of them into the industry.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
The Secretary of State has visited many airports to discuss the upgrading of airport security, and has seen the new security equipment in operation. I know that my predecessor engaged regularly with airport representatives to seek reassurances on timescales for the next generation security checkpoint. Most recently, I met Heathrow’s chief executive for discussions. I can reassure the House that I will continue this good work, and will shortly meet representatives of the aviation sector to discuss the matter further. There are many visits already in the diary; indeed, I will be meeting the Airport Operators Association straight after this session. My Department—
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, and I welcome him to his new role.
This new technology will greatly improve passenger experience at airport security. For example, it will obviate the need for those little plastic bags we all love putting our liquids into. Airports are worried about potential delays if the passenger scanners are introduced in one go for every passenger, as people will need to get used to the new technology. May I urge the Minister to discuss with the airport operators the phased introduction of the new scanners, to remove the possibility of delays?
Anthony Browne
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question, which he asked when I gave evidence to the Committee yesterday. I said he would have to wait until today for my answer.
This new technology will bring huge benefits for passengers, as my hon. Friend said—I think we will all be delighted to see the end of putting our little bottles into those little plastic bags—and it will improve safety. The screening of passengers with these security scanners is already being phased in. The Government have long been clear with airports about the requirement for next-generation security checkpoints, and the deadline for implementation has already been delayed several times, partly because of covid and other factors. Airports were consulted on the June 2024 deadline, and many have successfully trialled the scanners. They are already phasing them in, and June 2024 is the end deadline. My message to the airports is that they should start implementing them now; they should not wait for the deadline. I will discuss it with the Airport Operators Association in our meeting immediately after questions.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)
Our transport decarbonisation plan is probably the most advanced of any country in the world, and we continue to implement it. Just yesterday, King Charles approved the zero-emission vehicle mandate, which requires 80% of new vehicles to have zero emissions by 2030. Petrol and diesel cars, vans and trucks weighing up to 26 tonnes will be banned by 2035. We have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, under which 10% of aviation fuel should be sustainable by 2030. Similarly, we are pushing ahead in all the different sectors.
Marion Fellows
I welcome the Minister to his place. This financial year, active travel spending is £1.91 per head in England and £30.10 per head in Scotland—a 1,400% difference between Scottish and UK Government priorities. Decarbonisation needs transformational investment in active travel, which particularly supports accessibility, and it simply is not happening for folk in England. Will he undertake to begin the long process of finally getting England on the road to matching Scotland’s ambition?
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Member for that question. We are actually spending more money on active travel than any other Government in history. As she says, active travel is an important part of decarbonisation and the route to net zero. Her figures do not take into account the regional spending within England, which should be added to the total. I would be happy to write to her with the actual figures for spending in the UK.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that electric cars are cheaper to run than their petrol and diesel counterparts. He also knows that sales of new electric cars fell by 17% last month.
The Minister has just mentioned the ZEV mandate, and I remind him that it was passed only because Labour MPs voted for it. He also knows that it addresses manufacturers, not consumers—supply, not demand. How do the Government plan to reassure drivers that buying electric means cheaper motoring? How will he undo the damage that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says was done to consumer confidence by his Prime Minister’s comments on the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars?
Anthony Browne
My key focus in my decarbonisation of transport role is to ensure a smooth and successful roll-out of electric vehicles. The hon. Member quoted one month’s figures, but overall sales of electric vehicles are up 41% this year compared with last year. Indeed, a greater share of electric vehicles is being sold in the UK than in any of the five major countries in the EU—more than in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland. It really is a record to be proud of. He is right that this is about supply and demand. We have stipulated in the ZEV mandate that 80% of sales should be zero/electric by 2030, but we also need to ensure that there are enough charge points for them. We have spent nearly £2 billion supporting electric vehicles, and we have a whole range of different schemes to deliver that.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
Nationally, we have substantially reduced fuel duty. Locally, I hope that the hon. Member will welcome the £33 million investment with his local council into the A34, which will help his local residents.
Navendu Mishra
Labour has revealed that the Government’s delay to the phase-out date for the sale of petrol and diesel cars to 2035 is set to cost drivers £13 billion in higher fuel costs. On top of that, petrol prices have already soared and car insurance costs have gone up by an eye-watering 50% in just a year. Where is the Government’s plan to tackle the rip-off prices facing drivers?
Guy Opperman
I suggest that the hon. Member reads at speed the plan for drivers, and goes back into history and remembers Gordon Brown’s fuel duty escalator. Perhaps his constituents do not remember the 6% increase that was introduced by the Labour Government, but my constituents definitely do.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
As I said earlier, these are the last Transport oral questions before Christmas, and we are backing drivers with an easier Christmas getaway. From next Tuesday, National Highways is lifting over 1,000 miles of roadworks, which means that over 98% of motorways and major A roads will be roadwork-free until 2 January. We are also getting on with the job of resurfacing Britain’s roads, thanks to the record £8.3 billion uplift in funding. Earlier this month, highway authorities received the first tranche of that investment, which will mean smoother, safer journeys and save drivers hundreds of pounds in costly vehicle repairs. Local authorities also have new reporting requirements, so taxpayers will know how that money is being spent.
The Prime Minister made the right long-term decision to redirect money from HS2 towards the local journeys that matter most, ensuring that more people in more places will see benefits more quickly. That is what the British people want, it is what the country needs, and it is what we are delivering.
Stephen Hammond
Will my right hon. Friend say when the strategic objectives behind Network North will be announced and published? Can he confirm that any projects announced so far are consistent with those objectives, and whether any of the HS2 funding will come to London and the south-east?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As I set out, the objective of the decision is to ensure that that £36 billion of transport spending, which we are reinvesting in transport projects, will benefit more people, in more places across the country, more quickly. We are investing £6.5 billion pounds of savings from HS2 outside the north and midlands, which will benefit his constituents as well. That includes additional funding for London—
Mr Speaker
Order. Come on boys, you’re going to have to help me. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House a very merry Christmas? Why have the Government wasted £95 million on technology to retrofit buses that does not work?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady will know that we have done a great deal of work to make sure that buses are compliant with the emissions rules. There are some technical issues being worked through at the moment, but I am not in a position to announce any decisions yet. We will announce to the House in due course when that work is completed.
Louise Haigh
Bus services are disappearing at record levels, yet the Secretary of State’s Department has wasted almost £100 million on retrofitting technology that does not work, because it was never tested outside a lab. Even for this Government, this is a shocking display of incompetence and waste. Will he now work with those cities left with useless technology and ensure that the next round of zero-emissions funding is targeted there, so that they can get on with the job of cleaning up our air and cleaning up his mess?
Mr Harper
Once again, the hon. Lady simply does not recognise the significant investment that we have made in bus services. We have announced a significant amount of extra money for protecting bus routes, we have rolled out funding to deliver the £2 bus fare cap, and we have announced the money to deliver zero-emission buses and delivered the full 1,000 we said we would deliver. There has been a huge amount of investment in bus services, because we know it is the most popular form of public transport and we will always back it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I am disappointed to hear that news from Aylesbury. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and to invite the bus company in to explain why it is not taking up the Government’s generous offer.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Mr Harper
On her first point, we are working with the local authority to progress that scheme, which was announced earlier. On her specific point, I will arrange for the relevant Minister to meet her so that she can put forward the case for that scheme, and we will look at whether it is possible to do anything to help her.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I thank my hon. Friend for joining me and others in the industry to discuss open-access rail on 27 October. I have today written to the Office of Rail and Road and the chief executive of Network Rail, asking them to review the unused access rights and agree a timeline, so that we can get decisions made more promptly. I hope to then give him more information.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Huw Merriman
As part of the engagement exercise, which the Prime Minister promised, I have met leaders from across the north. Last week, it was a pleasure to meet those from the region around Hull to discuss their preferred route. They made the point that the route should be prioritised because electrification has been talked about before, and I think that is a very good idea.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that scheme again. I know it is an important issue for colleagues in the east of England and I am delighted that we are able to make progress as a result of the decision on Network North. I have discussed it with Network Rail and the next steps involve the development of the full business case. Network Rail has what it needs to make progress, and I know my hon. Friend will be wishing it every speed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the important issue of road safety. I notice that the statistics she set out are inconsistent with those set out by her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). She recognises that our road safety record is not going backwards, as he suggested. When there is a fatality, road accidents are investigated by the relevant authorities, and that remains the position. We learn lessons from accidents, so that when we build new road infrastructure it has safety at its heart.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend follows my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) in raising that matter at Transport questions. They are without doubt the strongest lobbyists when it comes to train timetabling changes. She will have seen the test train that ran in June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the last Transport questions that we hope to make an announcement shortly. It is something that we are working on.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Of the 4,000 zero-emission buses promised in the national bus strategy, only 660 have been funded outside London and half of those have gone to overseas manufacturers. What are the Government doing to help UK manufacturers develop competitive zero-emission buses capable of longer distance journeys?
Guy Opperman
I was delighted to meet and engage with many of the different manufacturers from the UK only two weeks ago. I look forward to discussing the matter with them in more detail.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Huw Merriman
I have met my hon. Friend and I appreciate the work that he does campaigning for the stations in his constituency. I have regular conversations with people from Govia Thameslink Railway, and I know that they have recently increased capacity on some busy services through Carshalton and Hackbridge. On Hackbridge station, I offer to meet him with a team from Network Rail to see whether we can address the matter that he mentions.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Such was the excitement in Wales in 2012 when Conservative Ministers announced that they would be building the four-mile western rail link to Heathrow to open in 2020 that First Minister Rhodri Morgan described it as one of the “most important announcements” in the last 50 years, but it was yet another broken promise. After more than a decade, when does the Transport Secretary expect the first spade to be dug into the ground to build the No.1 infrastructure priority of the Thames Valley region?
Huw Merriman
When this proposal was first mooted, it was to be a 50:50 split with Heathrow airport and the new runway, but matters changed after the pandemic. We are determined to see private sector involvement in the railways continue. If there is a private sector proposal, we are very happy to support it, but these schemes must not come at the expense of taxpayers.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) saw for himself on Sunday night the scourge of pedicabs in the west end. With the Pedicabs (London) Bill having reached Report stage in the Lords, can he update the House on when we can expect it to be presented in this place?
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
One train per hour stops on the Durham coastline, usually with two carriages. This severely limits access to economic opportunities in Sunderland, Newcastle and Middlesbrough. Recently, Northern Rail confirmed a new two-hourly service, but my constituents will only be able to wave at it as it goes by, because the plan is that it will not stop at the stations at Seaham and Horden. Can the Rail Minister please use his influence with Northern to see whether he can get those trains to stop?
Huw Merriman
I am sure that everyone waves at the hon. Gentleman, great man that he is. It was great to meet him when he came to the Department. We talked about Durham coastal service and timetable changes. Today, Transport for the North is discussing timetable changes, so I hope that that proposal goes through and that I can therefore give Durham coastal service the improvement that he asks for.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I encourage my right hon. Friend to cut the money given to the West of England Combined Authority, as it spends it extraordinarily badly on vanity schemes for the Mayor, on cutting bus services for my constituents and on pillorying motorists with this dreadful scheme, which is hated in Saltford, for a bus lane on the A4?
Mr Harper
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about regional Mayors, which is that we have devolved powers and resources to them, but they are ultimately accountable to their constituents. I hope very much that if they are punishing the motorist, the motorist will punish them back at the appropriate time at the ballot box.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Now that the blight of HS2 has been lifted from North West Leicestershire, can the Minister update the House on when work will commence on reopening the Ivanhoe line, which will offer rail access for the first time in many decades not only to my constituents, but to our neighbours in South Derbyshire?
Huw Merriman
The Prime Minister’s Network North announcement gave that commitment on the Ivanhoe line down to Leicester. We are fully committed to that. I know that I am due to be meeting the hon. Member on another matter, so I will give him more of an update then.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Like many, I welcomed what was going on with Network North, particularly the announcement of Ferryhill Station. When it comes to the final assessment and decisions, we need to ensure that the right question is asked, as the Green Book says. The right question is: what is the socioeconomic benefit to the towns and villages around the station, not to the GDP of the UK? May I ask for that assurance please?
Huw Merriman
That was another commitment that the Prime Minister made in the Network North announcement. My hon. Friend has campaigned for Ferryhill Station for so long, and I thank him for bringing it forward. The business case will look at the socioeconomic conditions that he mentions, and I am confident that we will be able to get spades in the ground for his station very shortly.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
LNER is going to consult again on altering the timetable to increase the frequency of trains from Edinburgh and Newcastle to London, but that inherently means a reduction in services to West Yorkshire, Manchester and Merseyside. That is very sad, and it is bad for the northern economy. This is not a timetabling issue; it is a capacity issue on the east coast main line. Can we have some investment in the east coast main line, north of York, to remedy those problems?
Huw Merriman
As things stand, we are unable to operate that service because the trans-Pennine route upgrade, which is delivering the billions of pounds’ worth of investment to enhance the route that the hon. Member asks for, is currently being constructed. That will provide the bandwidth. As I mentioned, today we hope to get a decision from Transport for the North that will improve services and add an extra service north to south. Then, with the multi-billion pound investment in the trans-Pennine route upgrade, we will get east-west service improvements as well.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
In Hyndburn and Haslingden, we are hoping to have a very happy new year, as we hope to hear the announcement that both Rishton Station and Church and Oswaldtwistle Station have been successful in the Government’s Access for All scheme. Can any indication be given of when we might hear the announcement, and will the Government look favourably on them?
Huw Merriman
It is worth noting that 75% of all rail journeys now take place from step-free stations, with 220 stations made step-free under Access for All. We have 300 in the list for the next batch, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that hers are in that long list. We will decide shortly which ones to take forward next year.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the ministerial team stop briefing against hydrogen combustion engines? The fact is that hydrogen is on its way, in trucks and JCBs. Cummins in my constituency is prepared for three years. [Interruption.] When will the Secretary of State stop?
Mr Speaker
Order. Hang on a minute. Do not take advantage, Barry, because I will not call you again otherwise.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Not only are we not briefing against hydrogen combustion engines; we are very supportive of them. I have been to Cummins. I have been to JCB. I have looked at the fantastic work that is being done developing hydrogen. We have some world-leading companies here. The Department is very supportive, and working closely with them.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend the work of my disabled young constituent, Nathaniel Yates from Reddish, who has assessed every single railway station in Greater Manchester. Too many of them are not step free. We have the money for Reddish North, but when can we get the money for Levenshulme?
Huw Merriman
I commend that work as well. In fact, the Great British Railways transition team has done a station accessibility study auditing every one of our 2,500 stations. That report is due out shortly. I hope that the team can work with the hon. Member’s constituency to come up with some good data and improve access for all.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The key element of Scarborough’s successful town bid is the station gateway project, but getting permission from Network Rail to knock a new entrance into the back of the station is proving slow and bureaucratic. Can the Secretary of State gently lean on Network Rail a bit, please?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that Network Rail will have heard that. I will take it away, raise it with Network Rail, and get back to him to let him know whether we can make that go faster.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The latest of many improvements to Gloucester Station since 2010 includes vital work on the station underpass and forecourt; however, contractor costs have risen since the original station improvement fund award. Will the Rail Minister agree to meet me and Great Western Railways to resolve that potential issue?
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for that question. I am very familiar with the investment and work that is currently being undertaken at Gloucester Station, as it is the one that I use on a regular basis when getting the train to London. The Rail Minister will be delighted to meet with him to see whether there is more that we can do to take those matters forward.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Inevitably, concerns about overcrowding will come up this afternoon at a Chiltern Railways drop-in at Marylebone with Buckinghamshire MPs, so can the Rail Minister assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to push Chiltern to improve?
Huw Merriman
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working closely with Chiltern as it looks to get more rolling stock to replace some of its ageing diesel stock. There are capacity issues, as he notes, because more people are using the railways, which is a great success, but we will work with the operator to ensure that it gets the rolling stock it needs.
Venezuela: Threat to Guyana
(1 year 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
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if he will make a statement on the urgent threat posed to Guyana by Venezuela and the Government’s response to it.
Mr Speaker, you of all people know the importance of the Commonwealth—[Interruption.] Sorry—late night.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I will not ask where either, Mr Speaker, but it is good to see my hon. Friend here right now.
We are deeply concerned about the recent steps taken by Venezuela with respect to the Essequibo region in Guyana. I know that will be a key concern to the shadow Foreign Secretary and Members across the House, and we share those concerns. We believe Venezuela’s actions are clearly unjustified and should cease. We are clear that the border was settled in 1899 through international arbitration. The Foreign Secretary has made that clear in a recent meeting and calls with President Ali of Guyana.
The UK, countries in the region and the international community have been swift to respond. I have been in close contact with partners in the region to urge de-escalation, and earlier this week the Minister of State for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), attended an emergency meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial group on Guyana, which issued a clear statement rejecting the use of threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Guyana.
Brazil and other countries in the region have expressed their deep concern at the situation and warned against unilateral actions that threaten the peace and stability of the region. The UN Security Council met in closed session last Friday, at Guyana’s request, to discuss the situation. We note that a meeting will take place later today between President Maduro and President Ali under the auspices of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC, and hope that that will reaffirm the importance of a peaceful resolution to this important matter.
We will continue to work with allies and partners in the region and through international bodies such as the UN Security Council, the Commonwealth and the Organisation of American States to ensure that the territorial integrity of Guyana is respected. I plan to visit Guyana in the coming days to further show our support for the Guyanese people on this vital issue. It is imperative that regional partners and friends across the House, in the region and around the world continue to press the Maduro regime to respect Guyana’s integrity and to avoid escalation.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I will try again, Mr Speaker.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister is going to Guyana, which is an important part of the family of the Commonwealth. I am also deeply pleased that the two Presidents are meeting today in St Vincent to try to hammer out the situation. It must be of worry to this Government and to this House that a Commonwealth country is being set upon by a failing state because it wants to grab land to do oil exploration and take oil. That is not an acceptable position to anybody in this House.
The other problem is that the Brazilians are moving troops to their border to ensure its integrity, and I am also told that American military advisers are going to Guyana to help with the situation. The Guyanese have armed forces of 4,000; the Venezuelans have 350,000. I urge this Government to stand solidly behind Guyana, not just as a Commonwealth country, but as a country in South America. I remember that the last time there was an issue in South America, in ’82, it did not end well, and we stood for the oppressed. I urge this Government not just to send the Minister to visit, but to make sure that there is tangible help for the people of Guyana to encourage them to stand up for their rights.
David Rutley
The Government completely agree that the current situation is not acceptable. We are deeply concerned by the unilateral move by Venezuela over this region. Our position is absolutely clear and has not changed: the border was settled in 1899 through international arbitration. Venezuela must desist from its action. It has deliberately and unacceptably escalated the situation, and the people of Guyana deserve to be free from the threats to their country.
We work closely with our friends in the region. My hon. Friend mentioned Brazil. Of course, we have been in conversations with Brazil, which has taken a robust stance. I know that my Opposition counterpart with responsibility for Latin American affairs feels the same way. We are, across the House, completely opposed to this sort of action. We want peace and stability in Latin America to continue for decades to come.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing the question on this important matter.
The actions of Venezuela over the past few weeks have been provocative and dangerous. President Maduro has shown a determination to stoke historical grievances, attack recognised international borders and seek aggressive confrontation instead of good neighbourly relations. All that sounds worryingly familiar, because it is the playbook of President Putin. We have challenged it in Ukraine, and we must do the same in Guyana. We often talk in abstract terms about the importance of a rules-based international order, but this is its essence: that disputes are settled peacefully through proper legal and diplomatic processes, not through threats or intimidation; that settled and recognised borders are not subject to change through threat or force; and that the big cannot bully the small. We must be resolute in standing up to those with imperialist ambitions.
I welcome that there will be talks between the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela in St Vincent. I put on record my thanks to Brazil for its leadership on this matter, including the deployment of troops along its border. Those talks should be a mechanism to reduce the tensions brought about by Venezuela’s actions, not a discussion about settled borders or a reward for threats. The Essequibo border was settled more than 100 years ago in 1899. Has the Minister spoken directly to Brazilian or American counterparts, or to key regional bodies such as CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—and the Organisation of American States, about responding to Maduro’s actions?
Guyana is a diverse, beautiful and proud country with close ties of history, friendship and family with the UK. As the child of parents who came from Guyana as part of the Windrush generation, I am living proof of our shared history. For my relatives, and for all the people of Guyana, this is a deeply troubling time. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated that he will go to Guyana shortly, and that the UK’s support for Guyana’s sovereignty is unwavering. What specific actions are the Government taking to ensure that, if the threat is followed through, Guyana’s sovereignty is protected?
David Rutley
It is good to see strong cross-party support on this vital issue. I certainly recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter from his personal perspective and from a geopolitical perspective. He is absolutely right: this is from the playbook of Putin and other dictators around the world, and it needs to be called out and stopped. We are grateful for the work that Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, is doing to facilitate those conversations. They need to be about de-escalation; the border is a settled issue as far as we are concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what action we are taking. I can assure him that there have been multiple conversations. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely concerned about this. I have held conversations with interlocutors in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and many other places. I was in Argentina for the inauguration at the weekend, and I met many interlocutors there who all share the concern. We will work with CARICOM, the OAS, the UN, and, of course, the Commonwealth, which is vital, to call this out and take whatever steps are required.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am glad to follow the Opposition foreign and Commonwealth affairs spokesman in reminding the House and the Minister that when the United States persuaded the United Kingdom to go to international arbitration, the determination in 1899 was to leave that region as part of what is now Guyana, which became independent in 1966. The dispute with Suriname was settled some time ago by agreement. This should be as well, and Venezuela should go back to solving its own problems and exploiting its own hydrocarbons, if it chooses to do so, as it moves towards a more eco-friendly economy and preferably a better kind of politics as well.
David Rutley
The Father of the House makes a very important point. This is a settled matter, and Venezuela needs to sort out its own issues. There have been steps taken by partners in the region to try to help open the door to Maduro, and he has responded in this way. It is unacceptable.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing this urgent question. It is indeed ironic that the day after the excitement of COP, here we are discussing the potential annexation of one country by its larger and more powerful neighbour because of the discovery of a huge oilfield containing 11 billion barrels of light crude. It matters not that the 1899 border issue remains controversial for Venezuela, because it has to respect international law.
I am pleased that the International Court of Justice has warned Maduro not to take any action that could alter the status quo, but can the Minister tell me what discussions the UK Government have had with representatives of the ICJ? Have discussions been had directly with the Venezuelans on behalf of the UK Government? To what extent does he share my concern that our previously weak response to states using dubious referendums, followed by the use of military force, to annex parts of a neighbouring country, as Russia did to Crimea in 2014, has emboldened people like Maduro to believe that should he take military action, the consequence for him would be extremely limited?
David Rutley
Again, it is good to see support for Guyana across the House. Whether this is because of Venezuela’s aspirations about oil or some other matter, whatever that might be, its actions are completely unjustified. As the hon. Member indicated, we need to call it out. The 1899 border issue is settled. We support Guyana in its efforts to resolve this matter in whichever way it wants to through the ICJ, but it needs to be done peacefully.
The hon. Gentleman also makes an important point about Russia. These actions are opportunistic. There are huge issues geopolitically, and dictators or other Heads of Government should not seek to exploit these moments when there are far bigger issues at stake elsewhere in the world, so we need to call it out. As I said earlier, we are keeping this under very close scrutiny and will take whatever actions we think are appropriate, along with our regional partners.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing it. I also thank the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for his response. I do not often find myself in agreement with him, but, on this, I could not fault him on a single word. Both have raised the key strategic role that Brazil plays in the region. We are about to sign a defence partnership agreement with Brazil—in the not too distant future—so it plays a key strategic role. What further can the Minister do, particularly when he visits Guyana, to have enhanced conversations with Brazil to see what role it can play in making sure that we keep peace in the region?
David Rutley
That is a very good question from my hon. Friend. He knows more about Brazil than most people in the House, and I respect him for that knowledge and for the points he has made. Of course, we are working closely with Brazil. It has expressed its concern and warned against unilateral action. It has said that there is no way that Venezuela’s military forces would be able to access Guyana through Brazil, and we will continue to work with it very closely. As he says, we have a strong relationship not just defence-wise, but as we look to its G20 presidency and its hosting of COP30.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
What we are seeing is a shameful and cynical move by Venezuela’s President Maduro to threaten and bully a smaller neighbour. We in the UK must make it clear that we cannot allow such threatening behaviour to continue, so what steps is the Minister taking, along with international allies, to affirm the UK’s unwavering support for Guyana’s sovereignty?
David Rutley
As I said in my statement, we have worked with the Commonwealth ministerial group to call out this action in joint harmony with our other relevant Commonwealth partners. We continue to work with other international bodies to call it out, and obviously, we will be in a position to form a view—along with others in this House—later today, after the meeting that is taking place in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank the Minister for confirming that the UK Government are standing with Guyana against Venezuelan aggression, sham referendums and the threat of annexation. Can the Minister confirm whether he has had discussions with the Commonwealth secretary-general about this situation to establish how the whole of the Commonwealth family can support Guyana at this worrying time?
David Rutley
That is an excellent question. I can confirm to the House that I have had conversations with Baroness Scotland. As secretary-general, she has taken a very strong lead: she has issued two statements and called the emergency session of the council of Ministers, which as I said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development and Africa attended. We will continue to work with the Commonwealth, which is a vitally important organisation in this context.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Does the Minister agree that whenever a country’s borders are threatened, they must be secured, or it risks undermining that country’s sovereignty, social cohesion and national identity?
David Rutley
I could not agree more—that is absolutely vital, particularly in this case. Latin America has been a region of peace for many, many years, and it needs to stay that way.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is great to see the House speak with one voice in support of our Commonwealth friend and partner, Guyana. The Minister is right: these borders were settled in 1899. They are the borders that were transferred to the independent Guyana in 1966, and they are the borders that are internationally recognised. As the Minister also knows, President Maduro has said that he will immediately issue licences for gas, oil and mineral exploitation, in direct contravention—as we heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—of the ICJ ruling. What more is the United Kingdom doing to take this case up on the international stage with Guyana to make sure that ICJ rulings are adhered to?
David Rutley
We have already highlighted the work we are doing with the Commonwealth. We have talked about the international engagement, and obviously, the situation was also discussed by the UN Security Council last Friday. We are taking it at every single level, and it helps if, in this place, we condemn with one voice the actions that have been taken by Venezuela. That will be noted in each of those forums, so I commend the hon. Member for his very important words.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his response, and I am pleased to know that he will be in Guyana shortly—his presence will send a message. Guyana has an army of some 4,000 and a population of 800,000; Venezuela has an army of 125,000, plus tanks and aircraft, so it is very much the aggressor and the stronger of the two countries. When it comes to the potential annexation of a democratic country by somebody who many of us feel is a demagogue, part of the axis of evil—that is North Korea, Iran and Russia, and now we can add Venezuela to that list—it is very important that we take a stand. As a country, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, could we not send a Royal Navy ship to Guyana? That is the sort of strong action we need to see.
David Rutley
It is good to get the last word from the hon. Gentleman—that is often his role. We are working hard through diplomatic channels to urge partners in the region to use bilateral contacts and regional groups to advise and mediate, in order to de-escalate the situation. I also bring to the House’s attention the fact that HMS Trent is heading towards the region to support action against narcotics trafficking.
Business of the House
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 18 December will include:
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.
The business for the week commencing 8 January will include:
Monday 8 January—Second Reading of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill.
Tuesday 9 January—Opposition day (2nd allotted day) debate on a motion in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 10 January—Committee of the Whole House on the Finance Bill, followed by Third Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill.
Thursday 11 January—Debate on a motion on SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—provision and funding, followed by a debate on a motion on Jewish communities and the potential merits of a Jewish history month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 January includes:
Monday 15 January—Committee of the Whole House on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill.
Colleagues will also wish to be aware that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the February recess on Thursday 8 February and return on Monday 19 February, rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 26 March and return on Monday 15 April, rise for the May bank holiday on Thursday 2 May and return on Tuesday 7 May, rise for the Whitsun half-term on Thursday 23 May and return on Monday 3 June, and rise for the summer recess on Tuesday 23 July. Further recess dates and business will be announced in the usual way.
Lucy Powell
May I first put on record our gratitude to Mark Drakeford, a model of public service and public duty? Mr Speaker, I wish you, House staff, Members’ staff, colleagues, journalists, security staff and our public service workers a very merry and restful Christmas. I thank the Leader of the House for finally announcing the recess dates. One thing we do know about next year is that it will be a general election year. I say—bring it on.
This is our last business question of the year, and there is a number of outstanding commitments that were promised before we broke up. First, on the infected blood scandal, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Cabinet Office will update the House on the compensation scheme before the House rises, as promised? As we discussed last week, the Government got things badly wrong by voting against the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and breaking another commitment to update us on progress would add insult to injury. Given her previous personal and ministerial commitments on this issue, can the Leader of the House ensure that that statement is made next week?
A new process of risk-based exclusions from the parliamentary estate of Members under investigation for serious violent or sexual offences has finally been published this morning. I thank the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for the sterling efforts in getting us to this stage. Given that we have now missed the original timetable of a motion on it before Christmas, when can we expect this to be scheduled?
Not only did the Prime Minister promise to stop the boats this year, which he has not done, he also promised to get his emergency legislation through in record time, yet there is no sign of the coming Committee stage in what the Leader of the House has announced today—some emergency. It is no surprise, however, because the Prime Minister is too weak to push it through. Yet again, the Conservatives are tearing themselves apart, with star chambers, the five families and so on, but they are not starring in a mafia saga. They are supposed to be running the country, but they are not fit to govern. While real families struggle to heat their homes, put food on the table and afford Christmas, this lot are just playing at politics. Can the Leader of the House even confirm that the Committee stage will come in January? In all their desperate attempts to persuade their colleagues this week, reports have emerged of enticements of Government funding to constituencies in exchange for votes, and not for the first time. Can she put on record that this is absolutely not the case?
The Prime Minister’s emergency reshuffle has left us with no disabilities Minister. Given the Women and Equalities Committee’s damning report on the Government’s disability strategy just last week, can the Leader of the House confirm that someone will be appointed to this position before Christmas?
It has now been a full month since we have had a statement from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite major global conflicts. That is unacceptable—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are saying that there is one today, but that was thanks to Mr Speaker granting yet another urgent question to bring Ministers to this place. The Leader of the House and I are both appearing before the Procedure Committee on Monday, so I will not raise the issue of the Foreign Secretary coming here now. Last time I raised the lack of accountability, she assured me that the Government would regularly update the House, and that the Foreign Secretary was “forward leaning.” Will she ensure that we get a proper update on the unfolding situation in Israel and Gaza before the House rises, and regularly thereafter, so that Ministers do not need to be dragged here via urgent questions?
Today also looks like “take out the trash day”, with a large number of written ministerial statements on important matters. Will the Leader of House ensure that there is proper scrutiny of those issues, with no sense that the Government are ducking accountability to this place?
Finally, would the Leader of the House like to take this opportunity to apologise to 11-year-old Liam Walker for the disdain and tone deaf response that the Prime Minister gave to his plight yesterday? The Prime Minister’s sneering, angry response made him look small, and disregarding of Liam’s plight. Liam’s family do the right thing, yet through no fault of their own, they are homeless. Their story is the story of thousands of other families this Christmas. Will the Leader of the House do what the Prime Minister failed to do, and show some empathy and humility, and apologise for how her Government have failed working families who are facing destitution and homelessness this winter?
Penny Mordaunt
May I also take the opportunity to wish everyone a wonderful Christmas and a happy new year, especially all the staff who work on and off the estate to help us do our jobs and keep us safe, and all those who will be working over the festive period to serve our nation and their communities? 2023 has been a hard year. The British people have faced many challenges, and I am proud of their stoicism and grit in getting through it. Thanks to them and their efforts, the economy is turning a corner and inflation is coming down. Despite the challenges, we have stood by our allies, in particular Ukraine. We have taken care of each other, and we have crowned our new monarch. I wish everyone a peaceful and restorative Christmas, with good wishes and hope for the new year.
Let me start with the hon. Lady’s final point about young Liam. I deeply regret her choosing to paint Conservative Members as uncaring and non-empathetic. She knows that is not the case. Indeed, I pay tribute to one of our colleagues, who I think is in The Telegraph this morning, who made heroic efforts to prevent harm from being done to a young man who was homeless on London’s streets.
I can give the hon. Lady that assurance on infected blood, and I am expecting the House to be updated on that important matter by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. She is right that the Minister with responsibility for disabilities is important, and I am sure that that reshuffle announcement will be made imminently. I also remind the House that every Department has a disability lead in place. I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to all Commission members for the work done on risk-based exclusion. I think Mr Speaker has written to Members today, and we will of course bring a motion to the House early in the new year. I will also ensure that Members are kept up to date with the ongoing and tragic situation in Gaza over the festive period. I know, as I hope do all Members, that FCDO consular services are there 24 hours a day for any hon. Members who have constituents who need assistance.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of our further legislation to stop the boats. I always find it amusing that Labour Members are keen to see this legislation brought forward so that they can stop it. They say that they have changed, but they have not, and I am afraid their actions speak louder than words. They talk tough on borders, but they have voted every time against our measures to strengthen them. They talk about equality while not paying women a fair wage. They talk about a charter for workers while siding with strikers and eco-zealots who prevent them from getting to work. They talk of fiscal responsibility, but would borrow a further £28 billion more. They talk of opportunity, but would tax education and halve apprenticeships. The hon. Lady has talked empathetically on the cost of living, yet is very happy to clobber hard-working people who can least afford it with higher taxes, the ultra low emission zone and lower tax allowances. They talk of hope, but they would bring despair, as many in Wales are now having to endure. I put on record my thanks to Mark Drakeford for his service, but I remind people of Labour’s record in Wales.
It is a good job that the nativity did not take place in Labour-run Wales. Mary and Joseph would have been clobbered for an overnight stay levy. She would have had poor maternity services. The shepherds would not have been able to take the time off to bear witness due to cuts in the rural affairs budget, and the three wise men would have arrived post-Epiphany due to the blanket 20 mph speed limit and the poor condition of the road network. Do not fall for what Labour says; look at what it does when in power. Not all men who wear red and promise free gifts are to be trusted. Further business will be announced in the usual way.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has announced that there will be an Opposition day debate on Tuesday 9 January. Have the Opposition told her that they want to make it on the Leader of the Opposition’s claim that he will bulldoze through local objections to development?
May I draw her attention to the website of a man called Chris Dixon, who says he is in favour of building on the Goring gap in my constituency? He says that people who want to stop that development should vote for me, and those who want to have it built on should invite Angela Rayner to come down and see it. Will the Leader of the House say whether the Labour party is willing to expose its desire to build on green gaps to public debate in this Parliament?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that the Leader of the House is responsible for the Labour party. I know that the Father of the House must have told the Member who he has brought into question that he would name her today.
Penny Mordaunt
Mr Speaker is always right, and I am not responsible for the scheduling of topics for Opposition day debates. I know that my right hon. Friend will have sent a message today that if that is what Labour is minded to do, he will be there and spoiling for a fight.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Nollaig Chridheil agus Bliadhna Mhath Ùr a th’uile daoine—[Translation: “Merry Christmas and a happy new year to everyone.”]
Last week, the Leader of the House was unwilling or unable to answer my question about her Government’s latest immigration mess. Instead, she gave Scots another lecture from Westminster, this time about morality and her own global leadership. A lecture on morality from this Tory Government: pantomime season is truly upon us. Was she talking about the morality of her “pile the bodies high” Government, or perhaps recalling the time her Government said, “We are breaking the law, but only in a limited way”? Is it the morality that allows water companies to make a fortune in profits as children get sick swimming in raw sewage off the coast of England, or the morality that forces families of service personnel to live in quarters so riddled with damp and mould that they are judged too poor for human habitation? Perhaps that is the morality she had in mind. Could it be the morality of the return of near-Victorian levels of destitution across the UK? Perhaps she was thinking of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Perhaps she could lecture them about morality and see what they have to say to her.
Before the Leader of the House launches into—mercifully—her last video nasty of the year, I hope she can answer my question today. It is the same question I asked last week, which remains unanswered and mired in confusion thanks to her Prime Minister. This morning’s statement on “Citizens’ rights” might well address it, but we should have debated such drastic changes before now in this place anyway. It is supposed to be the season of goodwill, but so many of our constituents are now deeply concerned and frightened by the announcement, so I will ask again on their behalf: if the spouse or partner of a British citizen is currently living in the UK on a leave to remain visa, can they be deported if their salary is less than £38,700? Yes or no?
Penny Mordaunt
Let me start by wishing the hon. Lady and her SNP colleagues a very happy Christmas. I point her to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions about further information coming forward in the new year. I said last week that I fully understand that people in particular professions, including the armed forces, will want answers. My office stands ready to facilitate any particular cases or requests in the meantime. Transition arrangements will be announced shortly, as the Prime Minister put on record loud and clear yesterday.
I do not know where to start with the hon. Lady’s lecture on morality. She mentioned vulnerable people, yet this week the SNP announced that Scotland’s national care service will be pushed back three years. She mentioned the armed forces, but her Government are insisting that they pay higher tax, and this Government are compensating them for that. If she wants to find Victorian levels of rats and rickets, she should go to SNP-run local authorities.
I think we should have a festive round-up on SNP morality: 12 hours of police questioning, 11 grand in roaming charges, 10 years without school inspections, nine sham embassies, eight years of poor child mental health, seven years without ferries, six years shirking welfare, five hundred million overspent on Edinburgh’s tram, four million to install a heat pump, three high-profile arrests, two overseas jollies, and a dodgy Jaguar EV. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have succeeded in bringing a smile to the hon. Lady’s face. I must thank her for being the gift that keeps on giving at business questions. I hope that in 2024 better things are destined for the Scottish people: better education, health, transport and opportunities, and better value for the taxes they pay. I hope that all their MPs will come here, represent their interests and take responsibility for the authority that they are given. That is my Christmas wish.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
In the new year, can we have a series of debates celebrating all the positive things happening in our constituencies? They include the £64 million of levelling-up cash for Marsden Mills and the Huddersfield-Penistone line in my area; a brand-new A&E unit; the west Yorkshire investment zone investing in Huddersfield university; the trans-Pennine upgrade; and wonderful community groups such as those in Milnsbridge Village Hall and the Friend To Friend group, where I will join pensioners tomorrow for a Christmas lunch. Can we please celebrate these positive things happening in our communities?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the considerable achievements that he and his constituents have secured over the past year. I am reminded of the, very sadly, late Benjamin Zephaniah, who as guest editor on the “Today” programme insisted that it be just about good news. We could all do with that occasionally. My hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for the first week after the Christmas recess and for the extensive list of recess dates, which we will fill up our diaries with. I mentioned that last week, so it is welcome to get the dates in the bag.
I am afraid to say that I am of such an age that I have been a school governor for 40 years continuously. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am the chair of governors at a primary school in Gateshead, where 52% of the youngsters are entitled to free school meals. Holiday hunger is not a concept confined to the summer recess. Can we have a statement from the children’s Minister on whether the Government have plans to tackle holiday hunger in the winter break, when cold exacerbates the problem and adds to the misery of hungry children?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for this work on the Backbench Business Committee and for his question. He will know that it was the topic that the Youth Parliament chose to debate when they visited the Chamber. There has been huge focus on provision in schools, particularly during holidays. If he has particular concerns, I will be happy to raise them with the Secretary of State for Education, as the next questions are not until 29 January.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Hannukah semeach, Mr Speaker. This evening, of course, is the last evening on which Jews will light their hannukiah. It is normally the time of year for joy, but for many Jews we are frightened to show our Jewishness on the streets of this country, not least because of the appalling examples of Jew hate we have seen on some of the marches. But it is Jewish students on our campuses who have it the worst. At a recent Jewish Society event at Warwick University, its WhatsApp chatgroup was infiltrated and freshers were called, “effing dirty Jewish…”—I will not say the last word. Visibly Jewish students at St Andrews were egged and an emeritus professor at Bristol called for her followers to blow up the Jewish Labour Movement. May we have a debate on antisemitism on campuses, so that Members can hold vice-chancellors, some of whom are doing a good job on this, to account for what is happening on our campuses?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important point. This was also raised last week in the wake of the appalling testimony that was given in the United States from three of its universities. His question is very balanced, because many universities are doing a very good job on this front. I will just put on record my thanks to the noble Lord Mann, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my own fantastic Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), for the work that they have done with others in producing a very good report on this subject. It is incredibly important that those universities that are not doing what they should do—we know there is no excuse, because the bulk of universities are doing a fantastic job—really get their act together. They owe it to this country and everyone in it, in particular the Jewish community, to get that right. I again pay tribute to the work of the Union of Jewish Students, who do so much work to combat the terrible antisemitism that is unfortunately lingering in some of our academic institutions.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
This has been a very difficult week for Pontypridd and Taff Ely. Last night, a serious fire and explosion in Treforest occurred and sadly one person is still unaccounted for. On Monday evening, three young men tragically lost their lives in a car crash in my home village of Tonyrefail, and two people are still fighting for their lives in hospital. This awful news has hit our close-knit community very hard and all our thoughts are with Callum, Jesse and Morgan’s loved ones at this very difficult time, as well as all those still recovering. Our emergency services acted in an exemplary manner in both situations, and I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to everyone who ran towards the danger and tried to help.
Sadly, in the wake of these accidents distressing footage from both scenes and malicious, cruel posts about the victims have been uploaded to social media. Some platforms were quicker to act than others and did remove some of the offensive posts and footage. I know that the Leader of the House takes a personal interest in online safety, so will she be willing to meet me to discuss a way forward to close the gaps and tackle this issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say how sorry we are and how much our thoughts are with all those who have been affected by these appalling tragedies in the hon. Lady’s constituency. It is terrible when one terrible thing happens, and I know it rocks a whole community, but to have two such terrible events take place together is truly shocking. Of course, I will be very happy to meet her to discuss what more can be done. She knows I take a personal interest in ensuring that social media companies take their responsibilities very seriously. If there is anything we can do to assist her community, we stand ready to do so.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Abdul Wahid is the head of the UK arm of Hizb ut-Tahrir. He utters the most vile antisemitism possible and praised the attacks of 7 October as being a punch in the face for Israel. Not only is he uttering this vile abuse, but he is also an NHS GP in Harrow. There is a large Jewish community in Harrow and they will be fearful of going to their GP in case he is the one who sees them. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can root out extremists from public service? In my view, his right to be in this country should be cancelled and he should be deported. We must ensure that extremism is not allowed in our public services.
Penny Mordaunt
I know that many Members will be aware of this shocking case. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on specific details of what might be happening with regard to an individual, but I can say that the Community Security Trust has been recording an increased number of antisemitic incidents and hate crime, notably since the start of the current conflict. Of course, these attitudes and actions are utterly indefensible and should not be tolerated regardless of a person’s walk of life, but it is all the more shocking when that person has been charged with carrying out a public service, especially one that requires the trust and confidence of the local community. I am sure that this is not the last we will hear about the case that my hon. Friend has raised.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Liberal Democrats have long supported a community-led rather than a developer-led planning system, and my constituents are waiting eagerly to hear what changes the Government may make to the national planning policy framework. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has indicated, both on air and in print, that an announcement is due to be made this week. I presumed that means an oral statement to the House so that Members can scrutinise any changes that might be forthcoming, but I note that no such statement is to be made today and that, as yet, there has been no written statement either. Can the Leader of the House please tell me whether there will be an oral statement from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the changes to the framework before we break up for Christmas?
Penny Mordaunt
As the hon. Lady will know, the next oral questions to the Secretary of State will be on 22 January, and I will ensure that he has heard of her interest in this matter. In respect of legislative business, I will make further announcements, and the House will be updated on statements in the usual way.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Leader of the House will have seen the statements made in May by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), about excessive rates of pay for Post Office executives. There is a real challenge in my constituency, in that residents are not receiving their mail on time, including medical notes and financial statements, which cannot be right.
I have written to those at Royal Mail asking them to address this problem as a matter of urgency. We are coming up to Christmas, and people, some of whom are elderly, cannot receive communications from their families. This is not only an issue for my constituency; it affects all of us over here. May we have an urgent statement on the Floor of the House about Royal Mail’s performance, and in the meantime will my right hon. Friend please ask the Under-Secretary of State to speak to Royal Mail, again as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the matter is addressed?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear this issue being raised yet again. Many Members have already raised it, and I know that my hon. Friend is working very hard to secure a better service for his constituents. I will certainly make sure that the Under-Secretary of State has heard about his concerns, but I think that what we can all do locally is urge against actions that exacerbate such situations, such as industrial action.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On Tuesday, at the Premier League stakeholders’ meeting, discussions about the financial package deal between the Premier League and the English Football League broke down. The representatives of the Premier League cannot agree among themselves about what that package should be, let alone come to an agreement with the English Football League. We are waiting for the legislation that was in the King’s Speech, because we need a regulator with teeth and a backstop that can sort this financial package out. It is essential for the future of our national game that we have a strong and competitive English Football League as the foundation for the Premier League, sitting at the top, so when will we see that legislation?
Penny Mordaunt
I am aware that many Members will want the legislation to arrive very swiftly, and they will not have long to wait. The hon. Gentleman knows what I am about to say: namely, that I will announce it in the usual way. But I can reassure him that we are committed to introducing both a regulator and the legislation in good time.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I again raise the issue of potential job losses at the Scunthorpe steelworks? As the Leader of the House will know, it has been raised a number of times, but this would not just affect those who will potentially lose their jobs; given the importance of the supply chain, the whole northern Lincolnshire economy would be threatened. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House is kept up to date by means of a statement, perhaps early in the new year?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the diligence with which he defends the interests of his local community and this sector, which is very important to the United Kingdom and our sovereign capability. He will know that questions to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade are on 25 January, and he may also wish to raise it with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on 16 January. I thank him for his ongoing work on behalf of his constituents.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Many families in my constituency will struggle to heat their homes and put food on the table this Christmas, and some will worry about whether they can even afford their home next year. Business should be booming, but owners are crumbling under soaring costs and business rates, yet the business of this House after the Christmas recess looks vague and out of step with their deep worries and frustration. Can the Leader of the House provide some clarity for the year ahead?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that, with the autumn statement, we have done a raft of things to support small businesses in particular, from freezing business rates for the fourth consecutive year to particular support for the most vulnerable sectors. The autumn statement took our cost of living package to over £104 billion. We stand ready to assist her with any specific needs, but we made sure to take care of both households and businesses for the winter ahead.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on improved education in England? I was elected four years ago this week, when one of the top priorities in my inbox was Hinckley Academy, which was inadequate and close to closing. Fast forward four years and, with Government investment, the Futures Trust coming forward and Lisa Hickman’s stewardship, Hinckley School is now rated good by Ofsted on every level. It is a fantastic success for my community. This is exactly what a Conservative Government can bring to education. Can we have a debate to highlight that fact?
Penny Mordaunt
I think that debate would be very well attended. We have an excellent record on education, and we have been right to focus on how we can have the greatest effect on social mobility and improved life chances. There are 30,000 more teachers and 10% more good or outstanding schools. We have soared up the international league tables on literacy and, of course, we have transformed the further and higher education landscape with an enormous uplift in apprenticeships, which are now world leading. That is in stark contrast to what is happening in Labour-run Wales and SNP-run Scotland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In all parts of Northern Ireland, planning applications are subject to scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, as is right and proper. However, delays in planning are often blamed on planning officers when the delay appears to rest elsewhere. The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has written to tell the head planners that he will no longer provide indicative response times for consultations, that he will no longer accommodate prioritisation requests and that he will no longer provide a response to any requests by telephone from chief planning officers. He is effectively saying, “Don’t call us; we’ll call you.” How can I best get this on the record and have a debate to make the Northern Ireland Environment Agency subject to proper timetabling?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has found his own solution: he has got it on the record. I agree that hold-ups, delays and the inability to rely on fundamental services are huge problems that prevent people from investing to get on with developments. He has found his own answer, and I thank him for his diligence on this matter.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement on speeding up the Government’s delivery plan on sustainable aviation fuel? I have spoken to global businesses, including Boeing and Airbus, and there is a very live and real risk that we will lose the race to secure vital international investment as these aerospace giants take their intellectual property elsewhere. Will the Government seriously speed up their delivery plan? Their so-called revenue certainty mechanism is not due for completion until the fourth quarter of 2026. If we do not act faster, we will lose this vital global investment.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, we have done a huge amount and are currently considered to be world leaders in this space. All credit goes to the RAF, for some of the pioneering work it has done, and to the Virgin-led coalition that led to the first transatlantic flight on sustainable aviation fuel. He will know that the next Energy Security and Net Zero questions will be on 16 January, and Business and Trade questions will be on 25 January. I will make sure that the relevant Ministers have heard his interest today, but I also encourage him to raise it with them directly.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, a brave group of women lobbied us in this House about lobular breast cancer. It is a much lesser known cancer, but thousands of women in our country suffer from it, and the diagnosis and treatment are still not perfected. The wonderful people who lobbied us yesterday told me that just £20 million on research would make such a difference to getting real answers in both treatment and diagnosis. Will the Leader of the House allow us an early debate on the matter?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and all right hon. and hon. Members who went to the drop-in that took place this week to raise awareness of this important matter. Good diagnostics are key to good health outcomes, which is why we have stood up an additional 160 diagnostic testing centres to ensure that we are getting through the remaining waiting lists. He will know that the reforms we have introduced in the life sciences sector—which enable people, whichever institutions they sit in, to work on problems jointly, as opposed to in competition with each other—have led to breakthrough drugs, and we have also had our investment and research missions for particular therapy areas. I can tell that there is an appetite to do more in this area. I encourage him to raise it at the next Health questions, but I will also make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Concern about dangerous cycling is becoming a major issue for my constituents across the Cities of London and Westminster, particularly with the increased number of e-bikes on our roads, which can reach 15 to 30 mph. My constituents are concerned about cyclists going up one-way roads the wrong way, cycling on the pavement, and cycling through red lights or over zebra crossings. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that the Government looked at regulating e-bikes, and can we have a debate in this place to discuss this whole issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I thank her for raising it. She will know that the next Transport questions are on 8 February. I am sure she will take that opportunity to raise the issue directly with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), but as that is a little time away, I will make sure that he has heard what she has said today. With respect to delivery companies that use these vehicles, the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), wrote to the major delivery companies to remind them of their obligations in this respect.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Royal Free Hospital is a jewel in the crown of my constituency. The maternity unit holds a special place in my heart, because I had both my children there and received wonderful aftercare from the doctors and nurses there. I am very concerned to hear that there are now plans to consult on the closure of the maternity unit at the Royal Free Hospital. Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate in Government time to discuss the potential closure of the maternity units at the Royal Free Hospital and other hospitals across London?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that all Members would join the hon. Lady in singing the praises of the Royal Free, which has an incredible reputation. She will know that these are matters that must be consulted on locally, and it is for local commissioners to decide what needs to happen at a local level. However, I know that the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is keen to ensure that commissioners are doing their job well, so I will make sure that she has heard what the hon. Lady has said today. I would also encourage her to raise it with the Secretary of State directly, as she may be able to assist and ensure a better outcome locally.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I recently wrote to the then immigration Minister to raise concerns about an individual who had been residing illegally in my constituency for 17 years. After repeated asylum applications, rejections, appeals and abscondments, the Home Office failed to remove him. Last July, he suddenly disappeared and went to France, but when the French refused to accept his immigration appeal, he came back on a boat. Subsequently, the Home Office gave him the right to remain. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that that is an insult to all our constituents and to genuine asylum seekers? Can she help me to get a response from the appropriate immigration Minister about why that series of events was allowed to happen over 17 years?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly ensure the Minister for Illegal Migration has heard what my hon. Friend has said. This is a classic case of exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening in the future. There is no silver bullet for getting our system fit for purpose. Many things need to be done, and that is why we have brought through subsequent legislation to give us more powers and, concurrently, to stand up new operational systems to help us detect and deter such people.
I encourage everyone to support further legislation that comes forward, because it is having an impact. The number of small boat crossings is down by a third in the last 12 months and it is continuing to drop. We have frustrated the business model of the people smugglers. We are stopping them getting access to boats and many other practical things. Processing in the Home Office has increased over the last 12 months by 250%. I think the case my hon. Friend raises would be a good case study for the Home Office to look at. I remind hon. Members that the Home Office is providing bespoke one-to-one surgeries with all Members if they need them, face to face or online.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a little reminder that we have several statements and then two debates, so questions should be fairly brief.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
In 2018, I was approached by an elderly constituent who had fallen victim to a bank fraud because of an abuse of trust. It took six months for the bank to admit fault. I raised the issue with Durham Constabulary in 2019, but the case remains unresolved after nearly five years, mainly due to a severe lack of resources, with only one forensic accountant in the constabulary. Tragically, my constituent lost her husband during this time and her own health has suffered, more from the stress of the long investigation than from the initial crime. This is not justice—we are failing victims of crime. Will the Leader of the House intervene and give her advice on how best to seek a resolution?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the distress suffered by the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. He will know this is an area of huge concern, particularly at this time of year, and the Government and our agencies are running public information campaigns to try to ensure that people do not fall victim to this kind of crime. Every single crime must be investigated, and people brought to justice where possible. I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today, as Home Office questions are not until the new year, and see what more can be done on the particular case that he raised.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Can we have a debate on anti-Jewish business decisions in the United Kingdom? An advertising company called London Lites had a contract with families of Israeli hostages to display pictures of hostages on its electronic billboards in London. Under antisemitic pressure, the company has breached the contract and taken down the adverts, denying a voice to hostages and their families, and playing into the hands of terrorists. No doubt anything else whatsoever can be advertised on those billboards, apart from Jewish victims of terrorism. What can be done about this scandal?
Penny Mordaunt
That is so depressing to hear and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising the matter. Businesses have to operate in complex environments. The situation in Israel and Gaza is highly complex and there are different views, across the House and the country, about what is going on, but some things are really simple. Standing in support of the hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas, nine of whom are children, showing them support and keeping them in the public eye is a good thing to do—it is not difficult to arrive at that conclusion. I hope that the company will reflect on what it has done and on the reputational damage I think it has done itself. I encourage all of us—businesses and individuals—to show some compassion, particularly over the festive period, and keep a spotlight on these poor souls.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Just a little reminder that it is important to ask the Leader of the House about something that is within her responsibilities—whether a debate might be held, for example.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
As confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility, interest on the UK’s £2.6 trillion debt will be £22 billion higher this year than was forecast in March. It will now reach £116 billion, equating to £318 million of taxpayers’ money every day, or six times Scotland’s annual NHS budget. Will the Leader of the House make a statement explaining the impact on public services in Scotland and across the UK next year, given the UK’s need to service its growing mountain of debt?
Penny Mordaunt
We have just had the autumn statement, and the hon. Lady will know that the Office for Budget Responsibility said that we have more headroom than had originally been forecast. Only an SNP MP could ask such a question when we are about to hear the Budget of the Scottish National party—a Budget in which it has no plan to pay for the public pay settlements that it has committed to, and which is expected to have a massive black hole.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff a very merry Christmas? Carshalton and Wallington residents are excited to see the progress that is being made on the improvements at St Helier Hospital and on the building of a second hospital in Sutton, protecting A&E and maternity services locally. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss the progress of the new hospital programme?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his campaign successes in getting those new facilities. It is not just about the bricks and mortar, but about the healthcare professionals who will operate in them. Having a debate on this matter to look at progress against our capital programmes, and the fact that we have smashed our manifesto commitments on recruiting healthcare professionals, would be a jolly good idea.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is probably unaware of this, but I am a special guardian to my four-year-old grandson. Lyle is not unique in being looked after by his grandparents; there are 180,000 children across the United Kingdom who are subject to kinship arrangements. I understand that the Government will publish their kinship strategy tomorrow. It is a shame that they did not do so today so that we could have a statement. May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a statement on the strategy on either Monday or Tuesday, before the House rises, because so many kinship carers are anticipating what is in that document?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good suggestion. I thank him for all that he does in this respect, and I will certainly make sure that the relevant Minister has heard his request.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Last week, we had the launch of Ceramics UK in Parliament. The sector suffers from a number of challenges, particularly due to energy costs and the need to decarbonise. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate in Government time about the support needed for the ceramics sector and other energy-intensive sectors?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he is doing to champion his constituency, and this sector in particular. Not only are an enormous number of jobs related to those products, but there is a knock-on effect on the tourist and hospitality sector in particular parts of the country. I congratulate him on raising the profile and the needs of the ceramics sector. He will know that the next questions to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero are on 16 January, but I will write this afternoon and make sure that she has heard what he has said.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Back in February, the Prime Minister made a personal commitment to me on the Floor of the House that support would be made available for the bereaved classmates of Brianna Ghey. It was agreed in June between No. 10, the Treasury, the Department for Education and Birchwood Community High School that it would take the form of a package of funding for the school to cover the cost of mental health professionals working with students and staff. It is now December, the trial in the national media spotlight is causing enormous welfare pressures in the school community, and the funding has still not been received because the DFE is saying that, despite the funding being approved, it cannot work out whose budget it should be taken from. There has been no progress since October, despite the best efforts of the school and myself to raise it with the relevant officials. Will the Leader of the House please intervene and ensure that the Prime Minister’s promise is upheld?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly do that. I think the Secretary of State for Education will want to cut through what sounds like nonsense bureaucracy and ensure that people get what they need. I will do it immediately after business questions.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I suspect that my right hon. Friend has not been invited to the social event of the year, which is Councillor Rachel Gilmour’s yuletide knees-up in the village of Bampton in Mid Devon. She lives in a lovely house, which she shares with her husband. The chairman of scrutiny that she is, her party tonight is being paid for by local government funds, and that is not on. To be basking in the adulation of Liberal Democrat colleagues by public subscription is not a happy place to be. The head of scrutiny has also refused to scrutinise dodgy finances in Mid Devon’s doomed housing company, which we have mentioned before. Her failure to employ enough planning officers is a disgrace, and the whole Liberal Democrat leadership in Mid Devon is an absolute disaster. I just hope that she remembers to pay the rent on her rented accommodation. Can we be told, and could we have a debate on Mid Devon, please?
Penny Mordaunt
I think my hon. Friend has got what he wanted on the record. I hope that his local council will reflect on how it is using public funds.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
What an act to follow! [Laughter.] Following the most amusing “Twelve Tartan Days of Christmas” from the Leader of the House, I rise with slight trepidation. Within the context of devolution, I have raised health many times in this place. At all times, the Leader of the House has been courteous and helpful in her responses. Nevertheless, the problems continue in Scotland. My constituents have to travel hundreds of miles to see a dentist, they can hardly get to see a GP, and now the A&E service at Raigmore Hospital is refusing all patients. It would be a splendid Christmas present to my constituency if the Leader of the House would grant a debate on NHS services in rural areas.
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sad to hear about the ongoing issues in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It must be incredibly frustrating for him. It is incredibly frustrating for us. He will know that the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Care offered England resources to assist with the backlog in Scotland, and the First Minister turned down that opportunity. I think that is a disgrace. I will continue to raise the issue. The hon. Member knows that health is a devolved matter, but we will do all that we can to improve the lot of his constituents.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
My local authority in Stockport states that the average waiting time for a blue badge parking pass is 12 weeks, but my constituents tell me that in reality the wait is often much longer. In addition, the rigid criteria to quality for a blue badge laid out by the Department for Transport mean that people with genuine serious and complex medical issues are frequently refused. That leaves many people who are in genuine need isolated and struggling to find adequate support for car parking. The key issues are the long wait times, the need for additional resources for local authorities, and the need to extend the qualifying criteria for those with degenerative medical conditions. As such, will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on the blue badge scheme in England?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that all Members have had casework relating to that. It is a complicated system. Local authorities have some discretion in the scheme. If the hon. Member wants to give me the specific details of his case, I will try to get some advice for him from the Department.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow marks a year since the fatal crush at the O2 Academy Brixton in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in placing on the record Parliament’s condolences to the families of Rebecca Ikumelo and Gaby Hutchinson, who sadly died? A third victim remains in hospital, and the Leader of the House may be aware that the police have opened a corporate manslaughter charge. The families want justice. What steps can the Government take, and can we have a debate in Government time, to ensure that families get a timely response to tragedies such as that at the O2 Brixton Academy?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure I speak for everyone in the Chamber and the whole House when I join the hon. Lady in her condolences and memories, particularly for Rebecca and Gaby, but also for all those affected by that appalling, tragic incident, which is still very vivid in all our minds. I shall certainly make sure that the relevant Departments—there will be a few that have an interest—have heard what she has said. It is obviously a live and ongoing case, so I am not able to comment further, but she has done a great service by reminding us of that anniversary and I shall make sure that Ministers have heard her words.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We do have to be very careful if there are any ongoing cases.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in my praise and thanks to London’s Community Kitchen and the Sufra food bank, which do such wonderful work in my constituency, but will she do more? In the new year, will she hold a debate in this place about the work of food banks across the country, not just so that we can praise and thank them for all that they do, but so that we can make them redundant?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman’s praises not only for that particular organisation, but for the many food banks across the country for the work that that they do. There are different models to how they work; some are sustainable, with a focus on using food that would otherwise be going to waste, and with some there would be merit in their continuing. But of course we want everyone in this country to be confident about their financial resilience. That is why we have stood up an enormous cost of living help package—over £100 billion now—and why we have done so much to focus on lifting people out of poverty, whether through the tax system, other local support grants or, of course, the uplift in benefits and pensions that we saw continued again in the autumn statement. He will know how to apply for a debate and I encourage him to do so.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Children with special educational needs in Leicestershire have unfortunately often taken two years to complete the education, health and care needs assessment process. That is, at least in part, due to the chronic underfunding of Leicestershire County Council over many years by central Government. I attended Education questions this week, where many colleagues raised concerns about special educational needs provision, so could we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on how we will resolve this unsatisfactory situation in Leicestershire and, I think, in many other places?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He may know that the Secretary of State for Education has a particular interest in this area, which was demonstrated during her stint at, I think, the Department of Health and Social Care. I will make sure that she hears what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to his local authority area.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are facing the toughest Christmas that they have ever faced, with rising food bills, rising energy costs, rising mortgages and rents—it goes on and on. They are facing a cold and difficult Christmas. Does the Leader of the House accept that this Government are too weak and divided to stand up for the British people, spending millions instead on failing policies and flying Ministers back from critical climate talks to prop up a weak Prime Minister? Is it not time to call a general election and put the record of this failing Government to the test?
Penny Mordaunt
I, of course, disagree with the hon. Lady. We have a £104 billion cost of living package. We have doubled personal tax allowances. We have increased the national living wage. After the autumn statement, those on housing allowance will be receiving an extra £800 on average, those on universal credit £450 on average and pensioners £900 extra. We will do all we can to get people through these tough times, but the most important thing we can do is to control public spending and bring down inflation, and I encourage those on the Opposition Benches to support us in that effort.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Again, I bring an issue of concern to the House—I am grateful to be able to ask an important question. On 28 November, Iraqi Christian leaders made an official statement noting that, due to the dangerous situation, it was clear that Iraq was not doing its job of protecting the rights of religious minorities. Furthermore, some churches have stated that they will not hold Christmas services because of the volatile circumstances. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House and right hon. and hon. Members will probably attend church on Christmas eve and Christmas morning without any fear whatsoever. In Iraq, that will not happen this year. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the persecution of Christians in Iraq, and in calling for reform and greater protections for religious minorities in that country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for shining a spotlight on the plight that individuals in other countries face because of their religious beliefs. I am sure that, whatever our faith, when we attend our services over the festive period, those individuals who are less fortunate and find themselves being persecuted and threatened will be in our prayers. I thank him for the opportunity to say that from the Dispatch Box.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Does it relate to the business question?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, it is directly related to one of the comments that the Leader of the House made. On Report of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), announced that there would be a statement to the House on the infected blood issue. It was not clear from what the Leader of the House said whether that would be an oral statement or a written statement. Of course, I think that the House is expecting an oral statement, so I just want confirmation that that is what will happen.
These matters are often left to be discussed on the very last day before we go into recess. I urge the Leader of the House not to allow the statement to be on the last day, if possible, because that sends a signal to people—to the infected and affected—that they are at the back of the queue again when it comes to the Government explaining what is happening.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Leader of the House is still here, and I think she wishes to respond directly.
Penny Mordaunt
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The answer is yes, with the caveat that the right hon. Lady will understand: business is fluid, events happen and there is demand for particular statements. She will know from her meetings with the Minister for the Cabinet Office that he is a very diligent individual. He cares deeply about this issue, and I know that he will want to come to the House given the importance of the matter. I fully understand the optics that the right hon. Lady has described. She will know that I cannot give guarantees, but I hope that I have reassured her of our intent.
COP28
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as all the staff of this House and colleagues across the House, for all your hard work this year? I wish everyone a very happy Christmas.
It was a privilege to attend the summit in Dubai over the past two weeks. I was proud to represent a country that has cut greenhouse gas emissions more than any other major economy since 1990; that has boosted our share of renewable electricity from a rather dismal 7% in 2010 to almost half today, while almost entirely phasing out coal power; that has led the world in mobilising green finance; and that is now ensuring that we bring the British public with us on the transition to net zero, thanks to the Prime Minister’s plans to protect families from unnecessary costs and give people more time to adapt to changes.
While we are on track, the world is not. The global stocktake confirmed that emissions need to peak by 2025 and fall by 43% between 2019 and 2030 to achieve the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. The current pace of global decarbonisation is well behind that trajectory, and the urgency of the climate challenge means that we cannot delay any further.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has underlined the importance of transitioning towards renewables, which are less vulnerable to price shocks. That is why our objectives throughout COP28 were clear: we needed to agree urgent action to ensure 1.5° remains viable as a ceiling, including trebling global renewables, doubling energy efficiency and phasing out unabated fossil fuels; and we needed to reform international finance to unlock the trillions required in climate funding.
Today I am delighted to say that we have secured a final agreement that supports those goals. For the first time ever, we have a global agreement on a transition away from fossil fuels. The agreement on fossil fuels builds and expands on the UK’s leadership at COP26, which had the first reference to phasing down coal power, secured agreements behind efforts to decarbonise key sectors of the global economy and, most notably, saw the proportion of global GDP covered by net zero targets increase from around 30% to 90% during our presidency.
This week’s COP28 agreement is not perfect. We wanted to see more action on coal, and on ending the construction of new coal power plants in particular. Like some of the small island states, we wanted greater clarity and fewer loopholes in the agreement. None the less, this is a turning point. We are unifying the world around a common commitment, listening to the islanders of the Pacific and elsewhere, whose voices must be heard, and showing that we are responding to the science by moving away from fossil fuels and raising a torch to inspire action.
Throughout the summit, the UK made significant progress on delivering that action, building on our legacy from COP26. We were pleased to be one of over 130 countries to support the global pledge to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency by 2030. As co-chair of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, I was delighted to welcome 13 new members, including the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates—all committing to phase out unabated coal power. Through the Energy Transition Council, we are working with developing countries via our rapid response facility to help support them through the energy transition.
We also announced £1.6 billion-worth of new international climate finance projects, which will support developing countries to transition to net zero and adapt to the impacts of climate change, while also expanding green industries on a global scale. We joined the UAE’s climate finance framework, which sets out new principles to reform the global financial system, and we announced plans to launch the climate investment funds capital market mechanism to raise up to £7.5 billion over the next decade for green projects.
However, we recognise that keeping global warming to less than 1.5° is impossible without urgent action to protect, sustainably manage and restore forests. Following the historic agreement at Glasgow to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, the Prime Minister made forests and nature a top priority for COP28. We agreed £576 million to safeguard 10 million hectares of forests and help half a million people in poor, rural communities, which are the most vulnerable to deforestation. I joined Brazil’s Environment Minister, Marina Silva, to welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge of a further £35 million for Brazil’s Amazon fund. That is on top of the £80 million we announced earlier this year, making the UK one of the scheme’s top three contributors. Finally, the new forest risk commodity measures in the Environment Act 2021 will ensure that there is no space on our supermarket shelves for products linked to deforestation.
However, that is not all. We secured the expansion of the breakthrough agenda—our clean technology accelerator—to cover 57 members and seven economic sectors, representing 60% of global emissions. Up to £185 million was announced for a first-of-a-kind, UK-led facility to help countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America to commercialise green technologies. Essential commitments to support resilience included up to £60 million of UK funding for loss and damage—a significant outcome of Sharm el-Sheikh, now carried forward into operation—an agreement on the framework for the global goal on adaptation, and an international green public procurement pledge to boost the use of green steel, cement and concrete. The UK endorsed a bold plan to triple nuclear power capacity globally, mirroring our domestic strategy for nuclear to make up a quarter of electricity production by 2050. There were also new partnerships with Brazil supporting industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen transitions, and a roadmap for the expansion of zero-emission vehicles in the developing world, backed by major donor countries. The great news is that British businesses will benefit hugely from all that, because as the world decarbonises it will use British expertise and skills as a springboard to realise the net zero transition.
Just as the Prime Minister announced measures to ensure that we bring consumers and households with us on the energy transition, our negotiations at COP have been about bringing countries with us, helping richer nations to set an example, encouraging the biggest polluters to replace fossil fuels with clean energy and working with developing nations to finance green growth. COPs are, above all, about people and our long-standing, trusted relationships with partners all around the world— from big emitters to small island developing states—afforded us significant influence. I am proud of the role that my team played.
I pay tribute to the UAE presidency and Dr Sultan al-Jaber, who acted as COP President, as well as a host of others, including the High Ambition Coalition for its leadership jointly to deliver this result. I was delighted that the UK was able to support a strong delegation of international parliamentarians at this COP, including the first ever pavilion dedicated to parliamentarians. Despite this landmark agreement, and however successful the UK’s record to date, we still have such a long way to go to finance the transition and achieve our global ambitions, so the UK will continue to encourage others to join the UK on a net zero pathway in this critical decade and help deliver a just, prosperous and secure future for all the peoples of the planet.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his regular commuting between Dubai and Westminster. Given that he brought the last Government down over fracking, I think he did not want a repeat performance, hence his return.
I welcome some of the key outcomes from COP28, including in particular the commitments on renewables and, crucially, a transition away from fossil fuels. That shows that the COP process, however flawed and imperfect, can provide a forcing mechanism for action by Governments. I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Minister’s Department for their hard work. Indeed, by a remarkable coincidence, the breakthrough in the negotiations occurred in the 24 hours when the Minister came home and they were left in charge.
But, for all the advances made, the truth is that the world is still hurtling towards disaster, way off track for keeping 1.5° alive. While we need an over-40% reduction in emissions by 2030, we are currently on track for emissions not to fall but to rise, and a temperature rise of approaching 3°. Even after the agreement, that is the reality, so the question for the world in the run-up to COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil is whether good words at COP28 are finally matched by actions equal to the scale of the emergency.
These will be the defining two years in this decisive decade, which will shape the lives of generations to come, so we need a Government in the UK who will stop congratulating themselves and using the UK’s record as an excuse for future inaction and instead lead at home in a way that is consistent with what we are demanding of others. The Minister complained about a lack of action on coal at the COP, but the Government are opening a new coalmine, watering down emissions targets, seeking to drill every last drop in the North sea and starting a culture war on net zero. That has sent a terrible message to business, investors and other Governments; one that was heard loud and clear by people at the COP.
Let me ask the Minister four questions about the Government’s approach. First, the COP decision says that we need to “transition away from fossil fuels” in line with the science. The science is unequivocal: for us to meet 1.5°, we must leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. He is right that many countries fear that some will seek to use loopholes in the COP agreement to avoid that reality. Our Government are doing precisely that: they say they want to drill every last drop in the North sea. The International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee and the former president of the COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), all say that that is incompatible with the science. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries in the next two years that they must leave their fossil fuels in the ground when he wants to extract all of ours?
Secondly, on targets for 2030 and beyond, the COP decision makes it clear that we need not just ambition but policies that will meet those targets. However, the Climate Change Committee says that we are way off track for our 2030 nationally determined contribution. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries to have policies to meet their targets when anyone can see that we are miles off meeting ours?
Thirdly, on finance, I welcome the contribution on loss and damage, but does the Minister recognise the lack of confidence that the Government will meet their promise to provide £11.6 billion of climate finance? Can he explain how he expects to persuade other Governments to keep their promises on finance when people suspect we will not keep ours?
Fourthly and finally, when the Prime Minister spends his time at home describing net zero as a massive burden—which is what he does—how does he remotely expect to persuade others, particularly those in the developing world, that it is a great opportunity? The Prime Minister claimed that nobody at COP raised with him his dither and delay; I suspect that was because he was not there long enough to hear the truth. His U-turns have been incredibly damaging for our country.
The positive outcomes at COP came despite this Government, not because of them. Britain needs a Government who will show climate leadership again—not climate hypocrisy—to cut bills, deliver energy independence, grow our economy and protect future generations. In the next two years more than ever, the world needs climate leadership from Britain. Is the truth not that people at home and abroad have seen enough to know this Government cannot provide the leadership that the world so urgently needs?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I welcome what he said about the overall COP result and the need to celebrate it and build on it, and the fact that we need to ensure actions match words in this critical decade. That was one of the things we were wrestling with most, because new NDCs for 2035 are being worked on now for announcement ahead of the Belém COP in the Amazon in 2025, but it is in this decade that we need to bend the curve further. It is absolutely right that we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has focused on performance, and I am pleased to say that this Government have met every single carbon budget to date. The only major targets set on climate change in this country that have been failed were—let me think—the target of 10% renewables by 2010, set by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2010, again set by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served, was also failed. Every single carbon budget for which this Government have been responsible since my then party leader became the first leader to call for the Climate Change Act 2008 has been met. Our record is without parallel, and I will not have it trash-talked down by the right hon. Gentleman, whose record in government is so at odds with the words he uses.
On oil and gas, we are a net importer. We are transitioning; as I have set out, we are reducing our emissions faster than any other major economy on this planet. None the less, according to the Climate Change Committee, about 25% of our power will come from oil and gas even in 2050. We will be using mitigation technologies to offset that, but the idea that we should replace domestically produced gas with imported gas with four times the embedded emissions, when it will make no difference to our consumption, is environmental nonsense. That is why we are standing up for the 200,000 people who work in our oil and gas industry as it transitions; it is why we support the £50 billion in taxes that comes from that industry; and it is why we must retain the expertise of people in the sector going forward. The Labour party puts at risk our net zero transition—a transition that it did not set out on properly when it was in government, and that this Government are delivering on. As I said, we have met all our carbon budgets to date.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point about loss and damage. I assure him and the House that we will meet our target of £11.6 billion in climate finance on the original timetable set out by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to COP, personally committed and passionate about ensuring that nature and forests—on which we have been a leader—were championed at that COP. Hopefully, I will be able to give more detail about that when answering other questions. As we move into the coming year ahead of the Baku COP, we will focus on a new, collective, quantified financial goal. The Prime Minister, with his focus and expertise, will ensure that the UK is an absolute leader in getting that right, amplifying the billions we have today into the trillions we need tomorrow.
Sir Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I agree that we saw significant progress at COP28, particularly the agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels in the energy system. However, that agreement and all previous agreements are literally just words on a page; they will come to fruition only if all countries follow through in their domestic policies.
The Minister talked about raising the torch to inspire others. Once again, will he please review the plan to issue these annual oil and gas licences, and consider whether they are consistent with the international commitments we have made? Secondly, will he ask our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to urgently review the tax regime that gives significant subsidies to new oil and gas projects? This is a matter of trust. The Minister talked about the voices of the most climate vulnerable; they will be listening and watching, and they want to see action, not just from the UK Government but from every Government.
Graham Stuart
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his efforts at COP26 in Glasgow, including the significant measure on phasing down coal. [Interruption.] Could the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) be quiet for one second? He did so little in government, and he has so much to say now—it is quite a contrast, is it not?
Returning to my right hon. Friend’s serious and respectful question on oil and gas licences, as I said, we are a net importer. We are producing our own oil and gas to ever higher standards, and I am proud of the North sea transition deal, which has seen the industry work with Government to cut emissions from production by 50% by 2030. My challenge back to my right hon. Friend is this: in what way is there any linkage between producing to ever higher standards and a falling level of oil and gas? New licences simply allow us to manage the decline of a basin that is expected to fall at 7% a year and to halve in a decade, and will see us growing our independence from imports, even with those new licences. That is why we are issuing them.
On the issue of subsidies, our tax regime is set at 75% —among the highest in the whole world. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster North cannot win the argument when he is on his feet, so he tries to do it when he is sitting down. If only he had shown the same energy when he was in government, we would not have had the woeful inheritance that we alone have had to turn round. We are expecting £50 billion in taxes from the oil and gas sector, and without new licences to allow for the greening of the basin so that we reduce emissions, we would not be able to ensure that each barrel of oil and production of gas comes with a lower level of production emissions than it does today. That is our ambition.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
At COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland became the first developed nation in the world to commit funding to address loss and damage. Does the Minister agree that loss and damage funding should be prioritised to meet the needs of the communities that need it most, and distributed in a way that does not add to the debt burden of the global south? Scotland’s First Minister has welcomed the deal, especially the new pledge of $700 million for loss and damage, but of course, that still falls short of the funding that will ultimately be required. What is the UK doing to push for more funding down the line, and how much will it contribute now?
The former president of COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), made an excellent point. The new agreement reached at COP28 commits all countries to transition away from fossil fuels. We welcome that agreement, to which the UK is of course a signatory. Can the Minister outline how the UK Government’s plan to increase oil production in the UK aligns with the plans to transition away from fossil fuels, and how can we trust them?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the success of the loss and damage fund being operation-alised, but also to highlight the fact that it does not match the need for the quantum of finance. He asked me how we will be working on that. We have been delighted to contribute £60 million, of which £40 million will be going directly into the fund to help get it going. However, if we are to get it to the scale we require, it is going to need more than donor finance, which is why we have explored, and will continue to explore, options for innovative financial flows. So much of the change we have made there, even if there was an opportunity for increased debt, would not be debt financeable anyway, and that is why, as he said, we must make sure that those who are most vulnerable are rightly dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in production from oil and gas in the North sea. We are not seeing an increase in production; we are actually seeing production expected to fall at 7% a year. It is falling faster than is required globally. The IEA says that countries should be looking for a 3% to 4% reduction, and we will be reducing at 7%. As he knows, the UK has cut its emissions more than any other major economy on earth, has the most ambitious plans of any major economy to 2030 and, I believe, is the only one to have put into law a 77% reduction in the mid-2030s.
It is in that context, as we lead the world in reducing demand for oil and gas, that, none the less, our dependence on imports will grow. So it makes no sense whatsoever to see Scottish workers thrown out of their jobs in oil and gas, while we simply bring in imports from abroad with higher emissions, and lose the very subsea and engineering capabilities that we need for floating offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. There is a complete disconnect in this crazy opposition to the maintenance of an already declining industry, which is fundamental to delivering the energy transition. Even if I have little hope for the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, who has always managed to have inconsistent and incoherent thoughts in his head all at the same time, I am hoping that perhaps the Scottish nationalist party can come to its senses and support Scottish workers and the energy transition.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I strongly welcome this statement. I congratulate the Minister and my noble Friend Lord Benyon on the negotiations, but also officials such as Alison Campbell and many of the officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who played a blinder in working towards and securing the agreement. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for single-handedly making it possible for so many MPs to attend COP28. I pay tribute to him for doing that, recognising his previous presidency of GLOBE International UK.
I would like to say to my right hon. Friend that I was particularly proud of the mangrove breakthrough moment. I am conscious that the combination of nature and climate going together started very strongly in Glasgow and has accelerated. May I seek assurances from my right hon. Friend that we will commit to the £11.6 billion international climate finance funding? I know we have already started spending some of that. Will he also consider some of the approaches to things such as saltmarshes, the UK’s equivalent of mangroves, to make sure that continuing integration is part of our policy?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I also thank her for her attendance at the COP and her continuing passion and ability to communicate the importance of nature as a value in itself, but also how, dealt with in the correct way, it is complementary to development and to the maintenance of carbon sinks. Nature, and making sure that an understanding of it is central to our thinking, is so important.
My right hon. Friend thanked my officials, and she is right to do so. When Dr Sultan al-Jaber made the historic announcement of the UAE consensus, the central text of the various texts we agreed was that on the global stocktake. Having thanked the two Ministers who led the work on the stocktake, he immediately thanked Alison Campbell and Mr Teo from Singapore for their fundamental role. Our officials and my team were very much involved in drafting and pulling together words, and I was delighted to be supported by them as we met those from Saudi Arabia to China, India and other partners. I pay tribute to all those countries that, just like us, had to move from their initial positions to find a consensus.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the presence of MPs. My first COP was in 2005 in Montreal, and I remember feeling then that the elected parliamentarians, who make the political weather, were not properly accounted for. When I look back to that historic Climate Change Act 2008, I am proud of the fact that my then party leader, the noble Lord Cameron, was the first party leader to support it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) could just be quiet for a moment, I was talking about parliamentarians. It was a combination of Friends of the Earth working with Back-Bench parliamentarians and a new green Conservative party, and an early-day motion—an instrument here that is often looked at askance—that triggered the Climate Change Act, which has been significant not only for the UK, but for the world.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
One of the key themes at COP28 was food system transformation. Given the Climate Change Committee’s damning criticism of this Government’s failure to make progress on cutting emissions in the agricultural sector, could the Minister tell us what changes he expects to see in UK domestic policy as a result of the agreements reached in Dubai?
Graham Stuart
Again, the UAE can be very proud of the fact that, among so many other things, it really made sure that food was seen as an important part of this COP. He is right that land-use issues, agriculture and more sustainable agriculture are fundamental to delivering net zero. Under both my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and her successor, we are working very hard to do that at home, but we were also able to announce at COP support for more sustainable agriculture and land use abroad. He is absolutely right that this is an area on which we must keep complete focus. We must make sure that we deliver in that area, as in so many others, to pull together and maintain our net zero pathway.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In the very hot summer of 2022 almost 1,000 wildfires swept through Essex. We are not immune from the real dangers of global warming, so it was a huge honour to be one of the representatives, from this Parliament’s Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, at the COP recently. The rate of new solutions, the rate of innovation and the rate of investment, as well as this new agreement, do bring hope, but promises must be delivered, and there is a gap between the science and the promises. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to do all we can—locally, nationally and internationally—to close that gap?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend, and it was good to see her out in Dubai following up on so many of the issues, not least in recognising the needs of the most vulnerable and the poorest communities and countries around the world to ensure that they are not left behind and that we do have a just transition.
My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that she was a parliamentary delegate there, and we were proud to support GLOBE International UK, of which the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I were previous chairs, to provide the first ever parliamentary pavilion at COP28. I pay tribute to Malini Mehra, who has headed up GLOBE. She came in when it was in a troubled position for a promised maximum of six months, and she is still there. She is committed to ensuring that parliamentarians are armed with the information they need.
The answer to my right hon. Friend’s specific question is, yes, absolutely. When we consider that the country that has decarbonised most over the 31 years from 1990 to 2021 has reduced its emissions by 48%—namely, us—and that the world, on a 2019 basis, has to cut by 43% by 2030, with many large emitters pointing in the wrong direction, we can see that the challenge and the gap are not to be underestimated. COP28, with the UAE consensus, is significant, but there is so much more to do, and it has to convert into real change if we are to bend the curve further.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
There is much in the Minister’s statement that I commend and agree with, and in particular I reinforce his praise to our officials who played such a significant part in the negotiations. I regret the tone of some of his responses to colleagues, because the cross-party consensus on this issue over the past 30 years has been fundamentally important to the progress that we have been able to make. The science is clear; the world’s Governments are not. Those who are ready to deliver the transformation required to win the war against climate change are now considering whether the United Nations framework convention on climate change process is capable of delivering it in time. How long does the Minister think it will be before we see coalitions of the willing, such as the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, imposing sanctions on those recidivist countries who are still driving our world towards disaster?
Graham Stuart
On the coalitions of the willing, the world is changing, and the EU has already legislated for a carbon border adjustment mechanism for selected parts of industry, which will put up a carbon tax or a carbon price at the border. There is a certain intellectual inevitability about that if costs of production in one country are not reflected in others, and ensuring that that is done in a just manner is important. I would hate to look back at COP28 and find that it was one of the last times that countries around the world were able, on the basis of mutual trust, to talk to each other and come to a common agreement. The hon. Gentleman, who is highly experienced in this area, knows just how tender—I am sure there is a better word. The hon. Gentleman knows just how fragile the process could be if we do not all step carefully and ensure that we carry people with us.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
The commitment that 24 countries have made to triple nuclear energy capability by 2050 shows that the world has woken up to the most powerful, least land-taking, reliably proven net-zero energy provision that we have in the world. That is testament to my right hon. Friend, his Department and this UK Government, who committed first to 24 GW. Will he join me in recognising that without the world-class skills—I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register, because I am happily married to a nuclear welder with 45 years’ experience—and the blue-collar workers and nuclear operators working every hour, every day on sites across the UK, we would not, and the world would not be in a position to back atomic energy? Will he join me in commending Britain’s energy coast, which recognise that for us to tool up, retrain, train and recruit, we must regenerate nuclear communities, which are often coastal communities? That is exactly what Britain’s energy coast, and the energy coast business cluster, is doing so well in west Cumbria.
Graham Stuart
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her energetic, continual and well-informed—not least by marriage—understanding of the nuclear industry and its importance. I remember being at Sharm El Sheikh and it seemed that the only people talking about nuclear were 95 youngsters from some tiny pavilion at the back, who were going around promoting its importance. The science says that we cannot get to net zero without nuclear, in the appropriate places and with all the caveats. I remember saying to the incoming UAE presidency that, given their success with their Barakah reactors, and given the need to deliver nuclear and the UK’s determination for a renaissance, surely all countries involved need to come together and send a signal to the world, so that we are not leaving teenagers alone to champion the importance of nuclear. We as a country should step up loud and proud, and face down those who oppose nuclear from an ideological perspective, because it is so important not only to delivering net zero, but to delivering so many jobs in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend around this country.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Licensing aside, what sensible proposals does the Minister have to offer hope to the 1,500 people living in my constituency, and the other 200,000 people he referenced earlier, whose jobs depend on oil and gas now, and who could power our clean energy future? Offshore Energies UK estimates that if we get the transition right, the workforce could swell by 50%. Where is his plan for those workers?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady. In her coded way—we all know there is an election coming up—I suppose that is as far as she could go in opposing the opposition of those on Labour’s Front Bench to sustaining those jobs as we go through the transition. Those jobs and that skillset will be required for the transition. If we pull them and say that there will be no new licences or investment in the North sea, those jobs will disappear or simply go abroad, and that makes no sense. Along with Michael Lewis of Uniper, I co-chair the Green Jobs Delivery Group, and we will be coming forward with a green jobs plan in the first half of next year. It is a transition, and as the hon. Lady will know, if she can persuade those on her Front Bench to get off their ideological opposition to something that is fundamental to the delivery of the transition, as well as maintaining our energy security today, I am fully behind her.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I, too, was at COP28, and I congratulate the UAE on what we have all been achieving there. The Minister is right to underline what Britain has done in moving from 7% to half of our energy requirements coming from renewables. He is also right to say that we are still behind the curve. We punched through a 1.5°C increase from pre-industrial levels in July this year, and climate change will soon overtake human conflict as a cause of loss of life. We are familiar with the long-term targets of 2030 and 2050 that the Minister has mentioned, but they are a long way off. Would it be wise to start introducing annual targets —a yearly roadmap—so that we can see incrementally how we will meet those long-term objectives?
Graham Stuart
Interestingly, my right hon. Friend takes us back to the days before the Climate Change Act 2008 when, if I remember correctly, Friends of the Earth was arguing for annual targets, and that was the Conservative party position. Once the Labour Government agreed to take the legislation forward, they realised, as did the civil servants involved, that there needs to be a period over which these things can be balanced out. I think their thinking was right and that the five-year carbon budgets were right. We do provide an annual report on our performance to date, but overall we have to allow for things such as the pandemic and all sorts of crises that come along. I think the architecture was right—I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his Government at the time—and it has withstood the test of time.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As we have heard, the global stocktake decision text that was agreed in Dubai commits the parties to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Can I press the Minister to clarify what the Government believe the implications of that aspect of the agreement are for the UK? Will it mean that the UK Government now have to accelerate action to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in what remains of this decade? If so, what new measures will be needed? If not, are the Government really saying that the COP28 agreement changes nothing for the UK when it comes to fossil fuel usage?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is a good one. Our nationally determined contribution and emissions promise for 2030 is for a 68% cut from the 1990 basis—far more than any of our peers. We can be proud of that. It was set precisely because it was, on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, aligned with a pathway to net zero 2050. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we keep our policies under review, and as that committee pointed out this year, there are still gaps that need to be made up to ensure we deliver on that. We have always managed to do so before, and I am confident we will do so again. He is right to say that we should continually look at our policies to ensure that they keep us there, whether or not that deals specifically with fossil fuels. We are trying to move to zero-emission vehicles. Today we have made an announcement on hydrogen, with 11 projects being funded to produce green hydrogen around the country. We are, step by step, across the piece, putting in place the required policies. That means doing everything within the window to keep ourselves in our world-leading position, which is cutting emissions more than any other major economy.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
May I build on the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and congratulate the UK Government on signing the statement on civil nuclear fuel co-operation with the United States, Canada, France and Japan? That statement to secure supply chains, particularly of uranium, is so important, and the Government-led $4.2 billion of external investment will go a long way to securing our energy side when we need an energy mix. Does the Minister agree that that is exactly what the UK needs, not only for its energy security, but to meet its net zero targets?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend, as always, is well informed and insightful. We were pleased, along with 21 other countries, to join NetZero Nuclear, because nuclear has such an important part to play. As I said in a previous answer, we need literally everything, and we are pushing the envelope across the piece. By doing so, we are developing technological solutions that will not only serve our needs, but can be exported around the world for many years to come.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Minister is right that COP is about people and relationships. I was also at COP, and heard first hand what country representatives were saying about the recent actions and messages coming from this Government, in stark contrast to some of what he is saying today. The Prime Minister has spent recent months wrongly telling the country that net zero is a huge burden, rather than the economic opportunity of the 21st century. How can he as a Minister go to developing countries saying that they must seize these opportunities provided by net zero, given his Prime Minister’s message at home?
Graham Stuart
As delightful and pleasant as the hon. Lady is outside the Chamber, she is always challenging within it. The Prime Minister remains committed. He has insisted on our commitment to net zero and our 2030 nationally determined contribution, while ensuring that we carry people with us. He was delighted to announce £1.6 billion of UK funding for new climate projects while at COP, including £887.8 million of new and additional financing, with other announcements focused on driving forward climate action on forests, finance and net zero transitions. This Government are walking the walk while ensuring and making no apology for the fact that we seek to maintain the national consensus and carry people up and down the country with us as we continue to lead. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster North insists on giggling, but we are leading in the way his Government singly failed to do before 2010.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Minister? Politics aside, there is much we can all agree on in the deal at COP. I would like to see us go further in some areas, but I recognise that we have to build a coalition, and I thank him for the work he has done. However, it is about not just what we do, but what we say and how we say it.
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), the way that the Prime Minister recalibrated the Government’s policy in this area had the opposite effect to the one we all would like to have seen. We got the following headlines: “Sunak’s U-turns make net zero harder” in The Guardian; “Could Rishi Sunak’s green review threaten UK net zero?” on the BBC; “Sunak’s net zero backsliding ‘deeply damaging’ for Britain” in The Daily Telegraph; and “Climate tech backers slam Rishi Sunak net zero retreat” in the Evening Standard. Does the Minister not get that these messages are heard across the globe? Will he go back to No. 10 and ask the Prime Minister to be just a bit more careful in his language and how he says things so that we can get net zero over the line?
Graham Stuart
In maintaining the public commitment to net zero, it was important to say to people in my rural east Yorkshire constituency, for example, who are off the gas grid and fearful concerning heat pumps, that they would not see their boilers ripped out when they did not think there was an affordable and deliverable alternative. As the Prime Minister announced, we combined that with a 50% increase in the heat pump subsidy level to £7,500, and we saw a tripling of interest in the following week. Words do matter, but there are many constituencies to talk to. I look to the hon. Gentleman to help provide the proper balanced and nuanced view. This country has cut its emissions more than any other major economy on earth and we have more ambitious plans going forward. The Prime Minister is behind net zero. We must have a balanced discussion to show that we are not inflexible. We are prepared to work with people and ensure we do it in the right way.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister said that we have to ensure we are not inflexible. The reality is that a number of the policies and issues we are discussing will have an impact on the next generation and the one after that. Whenever I go into schools in my constituency, the young people raise climate change with me. The reality is that climate change is harming children’s rights and access to food, water, healthcare and education. Does the Minister agree with UNICEF on the need to build towards a climate change action plan for children and young people by calling for an expert dialogue on children and climate change to be held mid-year at the session of the subsidiary bodies in 2024?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is right to highlight children, who will inherit the planet we leave behind. In the meantime, they are peculiarly vulnerable to the negative impacts we are already seeing this year, let alone those we will see if we get to 1.5°C or beyond. She is right to highlight that. I cannot comment on the specific question she raises, but I will make sure that it is heard on the Treasury Bench and let her know as and when a decision is made by the Government. She is right to say that, just as we must ensure that the voices of the small Pacific island states and others are heard, because they are so much on the frontline, the voice of youth must be heard. I was pleased to meet youth representatives at COP28. We must ensure that we look to the people who will inherit the policies that we of a slightly greater age make in this Chamber.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I dare say that it might seem slightly implausible to people here in the Chamber when I say that I worked in oil fabrication, but I did, and the yard where I worked built some of the mightiest structures in the North sea today. What the Minister says about transitioning and redeploying skills is music to my ears and those of my electorate. I long to see the day when offshore wind structures are fabricated in the Nigg yard. However, there is a problem, which is that since the auction, some costs have risen by almost 40%. I suspect that the incentives will not be sufficient to get the industry to where we want it to be to make these things happen. Does the Minister recognise that, and does he have any thoughts as to how it might be addressed?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which, as ever, is well informed and extremely reasonable. He is absolutely right. I visited the port of Nigg. I was interested to see nascent floating offshore wind work, fixed-bed offshore wind work and oil and gas work, and I wandered into a hall where they were making a large and sophisticated piece for Hinkley Point C, extraordinarily. That was all at Nigg.
The hon. Gentleman gets to the point about financing and whether the auction, which has been brilliant at lowering prices, has in fact helped drive too much of the industry out of this country. Behind the day job of transforming our generation, my passion will be to see how, without following some others with WTO-breaching local clauses, we can nudge and support more industry here. That is why we are bringing in sustainable industry rewards—non-price factors, in the jargon. We expect those to come in from allocation round 7 onwards as we work to make sure that we look after consumers first, while not missing any opportunity to utilise, maintain and grow jobs here. On offshore wind alone, our expectation—this is what the industry says—is that we will go from around 30,000 jobs in the industry today to more than 100,000 in the next six years. One of our biggest challenges is finding those people, training them and making sure we are ready to deliver them, as much as it is having more done here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the positives in his statement and the significant targets that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is setting to achieve our goals. Some of the figures he has referred to are encouraging. I wholeheartedly support help for poor countries, as he will be aware. Will he outline the parameters of the loss and hardship fund that has been mentioned as they pertain to ensuring that the fulfilment of human rights obligations is in the requirements for any award?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his as ever gracious question. One of our disappointments—there were things we were disappointed with in the UAE consensus—was the watering down of elements we would have liked to see on human rights. He is right to highlight that. We have always wanted loss and damage to focus on the most vulnerable. The least financeable of all are people in an already parlous economic position, often at low scale, who are under threat from climate change. We hope that the funding that has been created for loss and damage can complement adaptation funding as well as mitigation work, and have climate justice at its heart. We have to look after the weakest and poorest on the planet. However unsympathetic the science, we have to ensure that policy recognises the realities for people all over the world.
Citizens’ Rights
(1 year 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, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the 2021 and 2022 annual reports by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements and by the European Commission, on the implementation and application of citizens’ rights.
The overall picture on citizens’ rights is very positive. Both the UK Government and the EU have worked to uphold our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. We maintain a constructive dialogue and remain committed to upholding the rights of withdrawal agreement beneficiaries and their eligible family members.
We acknowledge that a very small number of beneficiaries have encountered issues: from the roughly 5.7 million EU-citizen withdrawal agreement beneficiaries—EU citizens living in the UK—the IMA received 237 complaints in 2021, and 209 in 2022. From the estimated 1.4 million UK-national withdrawal agreement beneficiaries living in the EU, the Commission received 40 complaints in 2021, and 30 in 2022.
The UK Government continue to press the EU for concrete action to rectify those issues affecting UK nationals. In contrast to the extensive data that the UK publishes on the EU settlement scheme, we do not have consistent and detailed statistics on all member states’ residence schemes. As a result, we continue to encourage our friends across member states to publish similarly detailed data.
The IMA is a body established by the EU withdrawal agreement and a parallel agreement with non-EU European economic area states. It exists to monitor and promote the implementation and application of the citizens’ rights parts of those agreements in the UK, and it is required to produce annual reports on implementation and application for the specialised committee on citizens’ rights. It has published two reports so far: the first in June 2022 and the second in June 2023. The European Commission also has an obligation to publish an annual report on implementation and application, and it published its second report earlier this month.
The IMA reports set out the scope of the IMA’s powers, including the power to receive complaints, conduct inquiries and take legal action. They contain information on the measures taken by the UK to implement its citizens’ rights obligations. They also set out the IMA’s activities, including legislation, monitoring and litigation, early case resolutions, and decisions to take no further action where there is insufficient evidence of a breach. In 2021, where the IMA was notified of issues, they related primarily to access to healthcare and benefits, living in the UK and Gibraltar, entry to the UK, and housing. There were fewer issues in 2022, and they related primarily to the right to reside. In both years, the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and the Government of Gibraltar worked with the IMA to provide figures and information.
The UK has taken a generous and pragmatic approach to EEA citizens in the UK through the EU settlement scheme. As of 30 September 2023, there were nearly 7.6 million applications to the scheme, with an estimated 5.7 million people having obtained status. The Home Office continues to receive and process more than 1,000 applications every day, on average. There remains a wide range of support available for applicants, including the grant-funded network of organisations across the UK that have helped more than half a million vulnerable people apply to the scheme. Further support is available through the resolution centre, which provides telephone and email assistance to applicants, and We Are Digital, which provides support for applicants completing the online application process. The Government are committed to working with the IMA to resolve issues as they arise, and we will continue to update our guidance where necessary.
The European Commission’s reports set out the Commission’s duties and responsibilities in the application of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement, including measures to comply with the agreement at both EU and member-state level; the Commission’s approach to enforcement of the withdrawal agreement, including its exchanges with member states and complaints; and how the Commission responded to issues raised by UK nationals. Of the issues raised with the Commission in 2021, most related to residence rights or residence documents, and others concerned travel and border crossing, equal treatment, access to employment, and education and training. The 2022 report shows that most issues raised by UK nationals that year also related to residence rights, particularly refusals of applications to a member state’s residence scheme. A smaller number of complaints related to travel and border crossing. UK nationals can seek redress at national level and report breaches of their rights to the European Commission.
We are pleased that the Commission’s annual reports provide some statistics on UK nationals’ residence applications in most member states, but we continue to call for comprehensive data on residence from every member state. It is not acceptable that data is missing from certain states, particularly when contrasted with our own extensive data on the EU settlement scheme, which we publish quarterly. We also urge the Commission to provide further details on how complaints by UK nationals are handled, and how the complaints procedure is advertised to UK nationals in the EU. We continue to hold the Commission and member states to account for the correct implementation and application of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement.
Overall, we are satisfied that most UK nationals in the EU can access their rights under the withdrawal agreement, but there are some issues affecting a small number of individuals. We currently have two main concerns. The first relates to UK nationals’ ability to evidence their permanent residency rights in certain member states where challenges exist in securing residency cards. The second is to ensure that the rights of joining family members are protected. That means making sure that member states correctly apply the family reunification provisions of the withdrawal agreement—for example, that family members can access visas free of charge, and that sufficient guidance exists for joining family members to enable practical access to rights. We are working to ensure that UK-national withdrawal agreement beneficiaries have the same rights as EU nationals when buying property. We also continue to work with the EU Commission and member states to ensure that the withdrawal agreement rights of international workers are protected.
In conclusion, I want to underline the importance that the UK Government place on upholding citizens’ rights. We are committed to ensuring that both the UK and the EU fulfil their obligations under the withdrawal agreement, and we continue to work very closely with the Commission, the IMA and civil society groups to achieve that. I commend the statement to the House.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome engagement between the Government and the European Union on these issues. Maintaining an open, constructive and consistent dialogue is critical to the mutual welfare and rights of all those affected by the withdrawal agreement. We also welcome the work of the Independent Monitoring Authority, the specialised committee and bodies such as the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.
We will always stand up for the rights of the British in Europe, but we recognise that these issues must be addressed in a spirit of mutual and constructive co-operation. As the Minister outlined, the joint statements made in the light of the specialised committee on citizens’ rights appear to show important progress. Fewer issues relating to healthcare, benefits and housing were relayed to the IMA in 2022 than in 2021, but it is clear that some challenges persist. The Minister has outlined a number of those, and we need to work pragmatically and constructively to address them. One of the issues that he mentioned is whether data is fit for purpose. There is not consistency in the data provided by individual countries—it is incomplete and variable. I hope the Minister can say a little more about what he is doing with his European Union counterparts about the data missing from certain member states, in order to achieve baseline parity.
It has also been relayed to Labour that there are continuing problems with the process of issuing residence cards—an example often cited is Portugal. I understand that that process is now under way, but problems are being reported with family reunification, as people struggle to obtain appointments and QR codes. We have also heard about problems with payment systems and delays in printing and issuing cards, which can have an impact on other rights under the withdrawal agreement. What discussions has the Minister had about that?
Concerns have also been raised about the number of refusals in a number of member states and the varying approach to late applications across many countries. British in Europe, an important advocacy group on behalf of citizens, has stated that late applications and the prevalence of refusals are causing consternation and anxiety for many. There is also concern about the lack of communication and information on these issues. Concerns have been raised in the past in relation to Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Belgium, although again the situation has improved, for example with the Danish Government’s decision to extend the deadline for British citizens to apply for status to the end of 2023. Can the Minister update us on the concerns raised in that regard?
Particular concerns were raised about the situation in Sweden, where the refusal rate and the order to leave are statistically higher than in equivalent countries. I have heard some very concerning cases, including one relating to an elderly lady with dementia. Again, can the Minister say what discussions he has had specifically with the Swedish Government on those issues and what he is doing to improve communication with British citizens?
There are concerns about absences and the impact on ordinary and permanent residents. We need a clear statement from the European Commission on the position in the light of recent legal cases. There are concerns about fees. For example, I understand that citizens are being charged €200 to upgrade their status in countries such as Latvia. There are also concerns about cases—thankfully, a very small number of cases—where families have unfortunately been split up due to inconsistencies. Does the Minister have an assessment of how many cases there are in that regard?
Many citizens affected are raising questions about equal treatment and non-discrimination under articles 12 and 23 of the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister say a little about how we are ensuring equality of treatment in all areas—tax, property, school and university access, health access and so on?
Finally, there is a more general issue about where UK citizens turn when they need advice on enforcing their withdrawal agreement rights—there is a lack of specialised lawyers in this area—and about funding for advice and advocacy services, although I recognise the importance of the work being done by schemes such as Your Europe Advice.
We also need clarity on how we are addressing the concerns of EU citizens here, many of whom have lived here for decades, have contributed and paid taxes, have marriages and children, and so on. The Minister outlined the number of people who have applied to the EU settlement scheme. Where are we on the progress on determining remaining cases and making determinations? We are aware that the scheme has faced serious issues, with hundreds of thousands of late applications, long delays on decisions, delays for those with pre-settled status, and a lack of clarity on their move to settled status. EU citizens over here also deserve clarity and certainty over their status and that of their loved ones. It is vital that the Home Office addresses those concerns, so I wonder if the Minister could update us on what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Home Office.
One issue that is often raised with us is school trips. How can we address some of the problems that have emerged and may emerge around that important contact between our countries?
Finally, reconnecting Britain starts with Europe. They are our neighbours, partners and allies, and a Labour Government would prioritise building a new ambitious partnership with the EU and European member states. We will not rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union, or return to freedom of movement, but it is in our mutual benefit to ensure tangible improvements in the experience of citizens on both sides under the withdrawal agreement, recognising the depth of our people-to-people connections.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and for his warm endorsement of a statement that, I think, reflects the overwhelming success of the scheme on both sides. He made a welcome reference to the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which I was pleased to address last week in Parliament. That shows the practical utility of the exchanges between parliamentarians, both from the EU and the UK, and how they can serve as an important platform for an exchange of views. The warm tone of that meeting reflected the health and positivity of the relationship.
There are, of course, some challenges. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about data. We do need consistency across member states and we continue to work both with the Commission and bilaterally to encourage greater granularity in the data coming from member states. Bilateral work continues, for example on the issuing of residence rights. It is a particular issue in Portugal, but we have been very grateful to the Portuguese Government for their positive approach. We have raised it at the highest level and we continue to do so. The Foreign Secretary discussed these issues with Vice-President Šefčovič very recently. When I travel as a Minister, I am constantly engaged with these sorts of citizens’ rights as a routine part of my engagement across European capitals.
The hon. Gentleman asked a very good question about Sweden and Denmark. We continue to work bilaterally to resolve those specific issues. He asked a specific question about fees in Latvia. I will write to him on that and on his question about the number of family members involved in cases that are yet to have a satisfactory outcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked a very good question on where people should turn when they need help. In the first instance they should access help online, whether through the Independent Monitoring Authority in the UK or by approaching the EU Commission if an individual is resident in the EU. We have a very wide and comprehensive consular network in British missions right across Europe, with expertise that is deployable to help those concerned. I was very pleased to meet the group he mentioned, British in Europe. I had expansive discussions with that group, which does a terrific job of making British residents in Europe aware of the help available to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about the duration of a determination. Clearly, the Home Office is doing a terrific job in driving forward a high volume of applications. It is receiving and processing 1,000 cases per day. My understanding is that the average processing time is six months, but we should be very clear that no individual will ever miss out due to any kind of timeline. No one’s fundamental rights will be undermined. Settled status is guaranteed whether or not a certain timeline has been missed, and that was the basis of the recent extension.
In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman was right to point out that we are neighbours, partners and friends to the European Commission and to the member states. That warm tone and collaborative working dictates everything we do on citizens’ rights and beyond.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Having spent two and a half years negotiating the citizens’ rights agreement and updating the House on it, I am very pleased with the full statement my hon. Friend has just delivered and the conclusion that the overall picture is a very positive one, which is reflected in the numbers and in the dwindling number of issues being raised on both sides. Can he reassure me, however, that where issues are raised they go right to the top of Government—the Foreign Secretary’s bilateral conversations with members states—and that we are raising the issues with the consistency of data, because it is important to get the right arrangements for our citizens living in the EU?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. His moment has come! The House should be grateful for his tremendous work in the days of the Department for Exiting the European Union, in which he served very ably for an extremely long time. The fact that citizens’ rights are in good shape is in no small part down to his setting up of the scheme. He is right to ask whether issues go right to the top. We make representations at the highest level—the Foreign Secretary discussed citizens’ rights with Vice-President Šefčovič very recently—so it has the full attention of ministerial and official effort.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. I, too, am pleased that both sides appear to be working constructively to uphold the obligations laid out in the withdrawal agreement.
As we have heard, however, the situation remains far from ideal for many, including EU citizens living in the UK. I understand that during the meeting held earlier this month, the EU raised again the lack of clarity for EU citizens who hold new UK residence status, questioning whether their rights were guaranteed by the withdrawal agreement, or solely by domestic law. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether it is the former or the latter.
The Minister spoke of his concern about UK nationals in the EU being unable to evidence their permanent residence rights in certain member states. I agree that that must be a huge concern for those involved, but it is also the case that 6 million EU citizens in the UK have digital-only immigration status. Given the long experience of the Home Office having a less than perfect track record of file maintenance, will the Government do something now about providing EU citizens with a physical back-up to confirm their immigration status?
There is also concern around those to who have been granted pre-settled status but who do not yet have, or who cannot evidence, five years of continuous residence. With 3,500 universal credit applications refused, the right to reside requirement appears to be almost a hidden form of no recourse to public funds. Would it not be far better to strengthen the bonds between the UK and the European Union by recognising EU citizens’ rights with access to social security?
Finally, can the Minister tell us what EU member states thought about the new salary threshold, which means that British citizens will be unable to live legally in the UK with spouses from EU member states? Did they see that as maintaining the constructive dialogue and remaining committed to upholding the rights of beneficiaries and their eligible family members, as the Minister suggested?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman asked about the route via which rights were applied. The withdrawal agreement guarantees the rights of those joining family members with settled status, and no one’s rights will be undermined by any other factor. He then asked about digital status. We live in a digital age, and this is overwhelmingly the convenient and efficient means of providing documents, but should individuals struggle with the digital means, a dedicated resolution centre is available, so there is recourse to assistance for the more analogue-minded individuals who might need it.
Of course access will continue. As we have seen—and I noted the numbers in the statement—the volume of applications reflects the fact that a large number of EU citizens are still coming to the UK to join family members under the arrangements set up by the withdrawal agreement. That, I think, is a positive reflection of the success of the scheme, and also of the fact that those people are attracted to live and work in the UK.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to go beyond the scope of the statement by commenting on the salary threshold. I will not accept that invitation, but I will say that I think there is a warm realisation between the UK and member states and the Commission that the withdrawal agreement is working well. Citizens’ rights are overwhelmingly in good shape, and there is that warm positivity between the UK, the Commission and member states to ensure that we get this right.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he assure me that, as he continues to monitor changes in the law with EU member states, he stands ready to inform British nationals of any changes that are to be made? Will he say how that would be done?
Leo Docherty
We do stand ready. That information will primarily be sent out via our extensive consular network for UK nationals living in the EU—my hon. Friend will know that there are more than 400,000 in Spain, for example. We will use our consular network and our deep connections with local communities to ensure that those residents are kept up to date.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the spirit of the festive season, I might be allowed a slightly rambling question, having been inspired by the Minister’s mention of border crossings and travel.
In my student days, I went backpacking and interrailing around Europe. I discovered that a kilt would get you a free drink in some very surprising places. Indeed, I overdid it once in Munich, but we will not go into that. [Laughter.] I assume that before he joined the Foot Guards, the Minister will have done something similar—or perhaps that did not become a guardsman; I do not know.
I want to explore the Minister’s thinking. It strikes me that the ability of youngsters to travel around Europe and meet other Europeans, learning their languages and learning about their cultures, has been a tremendous exercise in peacemaking and understanding for the whole of Europe. Does the Minister see that as something important that we should try to continue and to accomplish in the future?
Leo Docherty
Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. We acknowledge that the ability of young people to travel and experience foreign cultures and education in different languages is hugely important, and we are doing all we can to ensure that the same volume of schoolchildren from the European continent are able to access that by spending time in the UK. We are open to discussions about a more sustained mechanism for ensuring that young people from Europe can always study in the UK, because that is very important.
The hon. Gentleman reflected pertinently on his personal experiences of travel in Europe. The House is grateful for that. It is, of course, a matter of grave regret to me that the Foot Guards do not wear kilts.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Well, there is food for thought. I thank the Minister for his statement.
Human Trafficking
Home Affairs Committee
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee. Dame Diana Johnson will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I should also emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Minister, and that Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this time for a debate on the report from the Home Affairs Select Committee on human trafficking, the first report of the 2023-24 Session. Let me also thank and pay tribute to the courage and bravery of the survivors who shared their views and experiences with us as part of the inquiry, and express my gratitude to the Committee Clerks, staff and advisers who provided such excellent support.
This report puts paid to the idea that the UK is still a world leader in combating human trafficking. It is not. A preoccupation with small boat crossings and the Rwanda scheme has seen the Government divert their focus and resources away from combating human trafficking. The post of Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner was vacant for 18 months. The Home Office has not published its annual report on human trafficking for two years, and it has taken the Department two years to launch the new stakeholder groups to engage with anti-trafficking non-governmental organisations. The consequences of such de-prioritisation and delays are disastrous for this country’s response to human trafficking, undermining our ability to prevent exploitation, prosecute perpetrators and protect victims.
Let me begin with prevention. Let us be clear: human trafficking will continue to be attractive and extremely profitable to criminals unless more is done to tackle the demand for the criminality that it services. For example, there is currently too little deterrence for men who pay for sex, and that creates a market for trafficking for sexual exploitation. Indeed, the Government’s modern slavery strategy includes just two references to the need to “reduce demand”, and neither relates to sexual exploitation.
Law enforcement action against individuals who fuel the demand for sexual exploitation and who directly abuse victims has also been woeful. Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is headed “Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.”, describes a strict liability offence. However, between 2013 and 2020, just three individuals were convicted under section 53A, and the maximum penalty applied was a fine of no more than £100. We think that the law should be strengthened and penalties increased to ensure comparability with other sexual and trafficking offences, and to increase the deterrent value. There should also be much greater use of section 53A by police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Committee found that websites advertising prostitution enable and profit from such exploitation without even minimal safeguards on those platforms. We were deeply concerned by the decision of the National Crime Agency and the Home Office to work with these websites, given that there is no evidence that that has led to a reduction in human trafficking on them. Websites are directly fuelling sex trafficking across the UK, and causing unimaginable harm to victims. We therefore call on the Government to make it an offence for any individual or company to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, including the facilitation that takes place via websites.
Let me now turn to the subject of prosecution. The national referral system is the UK’s national framework for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery, including human trafficking. The high number of referrals to the NRM, totalling 16,938 in 2022, highlights the scope of exploitation in the UK, but the CPS received only 286 referrals of human trafficking cases in 2022, which resulted in just 405 people being prosecuted. We were very concerned at the disparity in those figures, particularly as we heard during our inquiry that the number of referrals to the NRM is almost certainly not a true reflection of the number of victims.
In accordance with the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for investigation, all suspected modern slavery offences are to be treated as serious crimes. Additionally, human trafficking and modern slavery have been identified by the National Crime Agency as a national priority threat, yet Dame Sara Thornton, the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, told us that the low prosecution rates are due to the level of priority and resources, including expert teams, that police forces have applied.
To increase the number of prosecutions, there must be additional training for law enforcement. Police and crime commissioners should consider setting modern slavery and human trafficking as a priority in their police and crime plans, and there must be more use of evidence-led investigations. We would also tell law enforcement to follow the money, as there are clear links with money laundering and other criminal activity.
Crucially, we say that victim support must be at the centre of the investigation and prosecution process. The “victim navigator” programme is working to support this, with an independent support worker working with the police to act as a trusted bridge between investigators and victims. This scheme should be expanded and used in all cases.
Finally, to hold perpetrators of human trafficking accountable, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 must be applicable to all those who perpetrate this crime. That is why we recommend that the Act’s definition of human trafficking should be amended to remove the requirement for the exploitation to have involved travel, and to clarify that the consent of the victim, in relation to either the travel or the exploitation itself, is irrelevant.
As long as the crime of human trafficking is committed, we will need to support and protect victims, but we are not getting it right here either. Right now, the NRM decision-making process is extremely slow. The average waiting time for a conclusive grounds decision in 2022, across both competent authorities, was 543 days. This contributes to the stress, anxiety and depression of victims, who face an uncertain future. Furthermore, these delays have caused many victims to drop out of the process before it concludes, leaving them exposed to a risk of re-trafficking.
We heard how long waiting times can be particularly detrimental to British national victims, who may opt out, rather than wait in the NRM, and try to receive help and support elsewhere. The Home Office also failed to produce sufficient evidence to our inquiry to support its claims of widespread abuse of the national referral mechanism and of people trying to game the system in order to claim asylum. We recommend dealing with the backlog and reducing the number of days that NRM decisions take, and we ask the Government again to provide comprehensive data to support their claims of abuse of the NRM, if that data exists.
For some victims, the NRM is not the right support mechanism. In 2022, 41% of all referrals to the NRM were children. The Council of Europe’s expert group on human trafficking notes that, in 2019, the NRM comprised: UK nationals, 52%; Vietnamese nationals, 9%; Eritrean nationals, 6%; Albanian nationals, 6%; and Sudanese nationals, 5%. Several organisations told us that the number of children experiencing exploitation is likely to be much higher than the officially reported cases, yet the NRM is not appropriate for children. There is an urgent need for a joined-up approach to victim support that adequately addresses their needs.
We are also deeply concerned by the lack of action on missing victims of child trafficking. Measures such as devolving decision making to local authorities and providing independent child trafficking guardians to support victims are examples of schemes that can have a very positive effect but are not widely available. We are concerned that, more than two years into the pilots, we are still awaiting any evaluation. We also recommend introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. Finally, the report makes it clear that it is certainly not appropriate to accommodate children in hotels, particularly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
I hope the report marks a turning point in the Government’s response to human trafficking. They can and must do much better. To that end, I welcome the decision by the House of Lords to appoint a special inquiry Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Modern Slavery Act, which will begin its work next year. I hope the recommendations and evidence base that we brought together in our report prove valuable to the Committee in its deliberations.
The Home Affairs Committee’s report offers the Government a clear road map for getting the UK’s response to human trafficking back on track. I am pleased that the Minister for Illegal Migration is on the Treasury Bench this afternoon, and I urge the Government to take heed of the recommendations.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I concur with everything the Chair has just said. She raised the very unsatisfactory absence of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for more than 18 months. Will she elaborate on our recommendation that the Committee should have a pre-appointment hearing role, as we have for certain other positions? That might enable us to chase the Government rather more effectively on filling that role.
Secondly, the Chair said that the NRM is not appropriate for children and that the Government have been slow to roll out independent child trafficking guardians, let alone a definition of child criminal exploitation. Does she agree that this goes well beyond just trafficking? This is about child safeguarding, child welfare and children in the criminal justice system, and it really needs a joined-up approach involving several different Departments. Otherwise, these kids will end up being perpetrators rather than the victims that, in many cases, they are.
Dame Diana Johnson
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent deputy Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. His contributions are always very valuable. On children, I absolutely agree that we need a joined-up approach across Government.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the Committee is disappointed that it has taken so long for an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be appointed, but we recognise that we could play a useful role in having a pre-appointment hearing for that important role. We said in our recommendations that we would like the Government to consider that, and we look forward to seeing the new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner at the end of January 2024, although that will be after her appointment. I hope the Government will take heed of our call for pre-appointment hearings in future.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and her Committee on this excellent report. Will she comment on the research that found that 75% of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are advertised online? One of these adult services websites gave evidence to the Committee that it allows
“individuals to advertise multiple people for prostitution concurrently, that age verification of individuals advertised on their site is not required, and that the same contact phone number can be used on multiple adverts.”
When I read that, I was struck that we could take simple measures to eradicate the loopholes that these websites exploit. What does my right hon. Friend think the Government should do? Does she think the Government could act quickly to deal with such issues?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. All the Committee’s members were shocked when we took evidence about these adult services websites—pimping websites—which are platforms used by serious organised criminals to traffic women, in the main, and advertise them completely legitimately and legally using, as my hon. Friend says, the same telephone number and often very similar advertisements. Hon. and right hon. Members should look at those adverts, as I did in my local area in Hull. I was shocked to see women advertised— “New in town”, “Only here for a week”—using very similar telephone numbers and pictures; obviously, they are being moved around the country. These are serious organised criminals who are doing this. I hope the Government will take into account what we say in our report, because when we questioned the Home Secretary at that time, she was not aware of the issue. In fact, we were concerned that the National Crime Agency and the Home Office, which have had lots of meetings with these websites, such as Vivastreet, seem to be taking an approach that is not about the safeguarding of these women, who are obviously being raped multiple times a day through these adverts.
We also know that Vivastreet and other platforms are making a lot of money. It is quite clear from the evidence that we received that the Home Office acknowledges that these websites are fuelling the sexual exploitation of women and the trafficking of women into this country. If the Minister and the Government do not do anything else, I really implore them to look at that section of our report, because it is shocking. Indeed, all Members of this House would do well to have a look as well.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I thank the Chair for her statement. As a member of the Committee, I found this an interesting but deeply troubling area to look into. Building on what the Chair has just said, the adult services websites are one of the most pernicious parts of our online economy, and the Home Office said that they are the “the most significant enabler” of online exploitation. We heard evidence that those that engage with law enforcement—which is not all of them, by any means—can show pitifully few results from that engagement, in terms of identifying trafficking, helping those individuals or reporting to law enforcement. Does the right hon. Member agree that one measure that we would like the Government to take is to work with the regulator to get these websites to police their own platforms and ensure that they better identify vulnerable people, but that if they fail to do so, the Government should work with the regulator to make sure they are forced to do so?
Dame Diana Johnson
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent member of the Committee. I know that we all found the session when we heard from Vivastreet to be a distressing one. He is absolutely right in his suggestions; indeed, I would go further. I am old enough to remember when there was a problem with pimps putting these little cards in phone boxes to advertise women for prostitution, but the law was changed and now that is not allowed. Offline, they cannot do that, but these adverts are still online. That needs to be addressed, and it is part of our bigger discussion about the online world. Where there is abuse and criminal activity going on, I hope that the regulators will address it. As the Minister is in his place, I hope he will also take a good look at this and see what more this House can do.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend and other members of the Committee for their deliberations on this important subject. The report is very thorough. I was pleased to hear her talk about the need to support and protect victims, because these people are indeed victims of horrendous crimes. They are crimes that we thought the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015, introduced by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), would seek to tackle, but unfortunately that has stalled. Was consideration given in my right hon. Friend’s report to the Government’s insistence on approaching this as an immigration matter and looking at it through the prism of immigration law, rather than focusing on the safeguarding of vulnerable women and children?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; that was an issue that concerned the Committee greatly. We felt that this area was being viewed through the prism of immigration law, when it needed to be viewed through the prism of safeguarding. We were very disappointed that it was moved from the Minister for Safeguarding in the Home Office and made the responsibility of the Immigration Minister. We did not think that that was the appropriate place for it to sit.
Just to reiterate, when we talk about trafficking, we are talking about criminal offences against the individual, whereas with immigration law we are obviously talking about an offence against the state, which is quite different. I hope that the new Minister will reflect on that, because I understand that this is listed among his responsibilities, whereas the Committee’s view is that it should move to the Minister in the Department who has responsibilities for safeguarding.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
May I join others in thanking my right hon. Friend and all the other members of the Home Affairs Committee, and the Clerks and the staff, for the hard work they put into producing this important report? As the report rightly says, human trafficking is a profit-driven crime that sees innocent victims utterly exploited for financial gain. It is only by operating a zero-tolerance approach and giving our criminal justice system the expertise it needs to handle these complex cases that we will see any real change.
The report highlighted a number of important issues and some omissions in the Government’s policy, and I am keen to hear my right hon. Friend’s thoughts on those. First, it recommends that the Home Office should urgently resume the publication of its annual reports on human trafficking. This is not the first time that this issue has been raised, yet the Home Office has still not responded. Does she agree that the Government have been too slow and that, as a consequence, there is insufficient transparency about the UK’s performance in tackling human trafficking?
Secondly, the report raises the concern that, in practice, human trafficking is no longer a priority for the UK Government. That was not the case when the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was at the Home Office. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Government get the balance right, and that the Home Office’s current approach is letting down victims of human trafficking?
Finally, Members will be aware—it has been mentioned already—that in October the Government eventually appointed a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, after 18 months of the role being left empty. However, there are concerns about the Government giving this job—one previously held by experts and senior police figures—to someone without a similar level of experience as her predecessors. Does my right hon. Friend think this was a wise appointment?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the Front Bench about annual reports. We have not had one for two years. There is something clearly wrong in the Home Office when it cannot produce an annual report of its activities. Sadly, we do think that victims are being let down. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have referred to the fact that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, led the charge with the Modern Slavery Act 2015—it was her flagship piece of legislation—the UK was seen to be a world leader in this area. Sadly, over the last few years we have slipped further and further behind. Other countries are now taking on that mantle, which is a great pity and does not do justice to the right hon. Lady’s legacy.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, we were disappointed by how long it took to appoint an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and by the lack of priority given to filling that post. As I said, we had no input into that—there was no pre-appointment hearing—so we are yet to see the person who has been appointed. We are looking forward to seeing her at the end of January, and we certainly want someone who will stand up and make sure that the Government hear clearly what is and is not working in the field of modern slavery and trafficking. I am heartened to hear that the new person is talking very much about the victims and focusing on them, which is absolutely vital. However, we will see her at the end of January, and we hope that we have someone who will be a strong advocate in this area.
The Minister for Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
May I add my thanks to the right hon. Member and her Committee for this comprehensive report on human trafficking? We will of course consider all the recommendations and findings, and respond in the usual way. She will understand that I will refrain from giving a full answer now—not least because you told me not to, Madam Deputy Speaker—but the Government recognise the importance of this subject and will respond in due course in the usual way.
May I also thank the right hon. Member for the warm welcome she and her Committee gave me yesterday? Because you have asked me to ask a question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the right hon. Member if she is looking forward to working constructively with me and my ministerial team, as I am with her and her Committee?
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, I smile quite a lot actually, but perhaps not as much as I would like to at the Home Affairs Committee. I thought we gave the two new Ministers a warm welcome yesterday; at times, we gave them quite a roasting, actually.
The House of Commons has given the members of the Home Affairs Committee, and myself as the Chair, the important job of scrutinising the Home Office, its policies, the way money is spent and what Ministers are doing. I take that very seriously, as do the members of the Committee. Of course we will want to work with the Minister, but we will scrutinise him and ask difficult questions. When they attend, we expect Ministers and officials to be fully briefed and to give full answers to the questions that members ask them in the role that we have been given by the House of Commons to scrutinise the Home Office.
Backbench Business
Knife crime
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
It is a pleasure to be able to bring forward this important debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member, for granting it.
I know Members on both sides of House take the matter of knife crime incredibly seriously, as do the Government, and I am sure the debate will demonstrate that. I appreciate that it has felt like a very busy week and many Members are starting to think about their families, constituencies and Christmas, so I am grateful to those Members who supported my bid for the debate, especially those who are in the Chamber. On other occasions, many more people would have joined us.
It is apt that I have secured the debate today, because back home in my borough of Walsall, which is in the constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, “The Knife Angel”, a powerful sculpture crafted from surrendered knives, is standing tall in Walsall’s Gallery Square until the end of this month. Those who have already seen it will know that it is an incredibly poignant symbol. It is symbolic of Walsall’s ongoing commitment to combating knife crime and promoting unity. This afternoon, members of the community, of all faiths and none, have been invited to come together in Walsall for a walk of peace to reflect on violence and knife crime. The event, along with “The Knife Angel”, will give Walsall residents and visitors an opportunity to pause and reflect, and it will send a powerful message from the borough to challenge and confront the consequences of knife crime.
In the year ending March 2023, there were approximately 50,500 knife crime offences in England and Wales. Sadly, data from the Office for National Statistics shows that in 2022-23 the west midlands recorded the highest rate of offences, at 178 per 100,000 of population. With a population of 2.9 million, that equates to a staggering average of 5,197 knife crime offences in the west midlands each year or 14 offences every single day.
However, it is important to remember that this issue is not just about numbers, especially where lives are lost, because behind every number there is a story, and behind every story there is a devastated, grieving family and loved ones, friends and colleagues. All too often, there is also a shocked and shaken community. I think of my own constituency, where James Brindley fell victim to an unprovoked fatal stabbing in 2017 as he walked home from a night out. His attacker was aged 17.
There are questions behind every number, and a search for the perpetrator and for answers to a life needlessly lost. My reason for securing the debate is to ask the Minister some of the questions that have been raised with me, as well as raising the questions and problems that so many, including the Government, are seeking to tackle. I also want to highlight some important ongoing work and the fact that much more needs to be done. Identifying and tackling the root causes is crucial.
There are common themes that we cannot ignore, around demographics and socioeconomic factors, including age, race and sex. Much work and research has been done and is ongoing in that space. For example, in the year ending March 2023, across England and Wales there were 3,420 cautions and convictions for possession of a knife or offensive weapon among young people aged 10 to 17. In the west midlands, between January and September this year, 565 under-18s were arrested on suspicion of knife-related crimes. All too often, children and young people who are not engaging can be lured into street gangs, violence and, sadly, even child criminal exploitation. I spoke to the Wave Trust to get a deeper understanding of the work it does and we discussed the need for a long-term approach to tackling issues around childhood trauma and parental violence and influence.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member is making a powerful speech. On her point about child criminal exploitation, she will be aware that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime and that we made the decision to change the name of that APPG. Does she recognise that a number of groups, including the Wave Trust, have been calling for a statutory definition of CCE?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady should be applauded for her work and the work of the APPG that she chairs. I am conscious of that call for action, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
We recognise that work on knife crime cuts across several Government Departments, including the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) is now a Minister in the Home Office, but I am sure he will do his best to address a range of issues while recognising that they have implications across Government.
Typically, 90% of attackers and victims are male. In London, 90% of knife crime offenders were male, and across England and Wales 91% of people admitted to hospital for assault by sharp objects were male. Low socioeconomic backgrounds are a factor too. A YouGov poll, commissioned by Barnardo’s, found one in five parents said that they will struggle to have time off work to spend with their children, meaning children are often left unsupervised. What concerns me most is when I hear young people say they carry a knife to make them feel safe. Surely, that has to be changed.
In 2018, the Government published a serious violence strategy to look at the root causes of the problem and how to support young people to lead lives away from violence. It was described at the time as taking a public health approach to serious violence, and various funds and programmes were set up, such as the Youth Endowment Fund and violence reduction units. Will the Minister update us on what his Department is doing to go further, working multi-agency with partners and community organisations on a number of levels?
This issue is also recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb). She cannot be in the Chamber today, but she often speaks on the topic of knife crime. I wish to highlight to the Minister the first knife summit that she held recently, which joined together local community organisations, the police and the Midlands Air Ambulance Charity to discuss the need for a whole-community approach.
In August, the Home Office made a very welcome announcement on the banning of machetes and Zombie-style knives. It also said that the police were to be given new powers to seize and destroy any weapon that they find. I, along with others, will continue to call for that to happen and I look forward to seeing the necessary legislation pass through this place—I believe that it is coming in the Criminal Justice Bill, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Locally to me in the west midlands, the Express & Star newspaper has been actively campaigning on the issue, too. We need to see that legislation in place sooner rather than later.
In addition to the work of Ministers and the Government, it is important that we recognise and reinforce other routes to tackling this problem. For example, in Aldridge, following the tragic death of their beloved son, Mark and Beverley Brindley set up the Brindley Foundation to bring about positive social change and to reduce youth violence. Their campaign includes LifeOrKnife and the setting up of 12 knife amnesty bins across Walsall Borough for people to throw away their knives anonymously. Recognising that young people need support and that they need to be part of the solution includes education, mentoring and training. The Brindley Foundation initiative also has support from local businesses.
Another way would be to look at relationship, health and sex education in our schools so that children can learn about positive change and consequential thinking. I urge the Government to look again at this, because currently there is no national programme of education for children and young people and no targeted guidelines in the curriculum for such behaviours or prevention.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech on the importance of the whole community approach to this matter. Will she also join me in thanking the Mizen Foundation, which was set up by a family in Sidcup? Following their own grief from the death of their son, the family go in and out of schools across the country, encouraging that positive change in behaviour.
Wendy Morton
Absolutely, I commend the work that the family do. Yet again, it is a poignant example of how, when tragedy hits, so many families seek to find answers and ways to help themselves deal with the loss of a loved one through helping others. I absolutely recognise the work that they do.
A petition to make knife crime prevention a compulsory requirement on the school curriculum has attracted more than 10,000 signatures. Locally in Walsall, our Conservative councillors are also working hard with partners to tackle knife crime, recognising the need for a broad and holistic approach. Central to that is the need for a partnership between police and crime commissioners, local authorities and the third sector. I am pleased and proud that Walsall Borough Council, under the stewardship of Garry Perry, one of my local councillors, is working closely with the third sector and with organisations such as the Brindley Foundation to ensure that this issue receives the attention and prominence that it deserves.
Political leadership matters, too. Sadly, I do not always feel that we are seeing enough of that in the west midlands, where we have some of the highest rates of knife crime. There is often a void when it comes to working with local authorities and the third sector across the whole region. I am pleased to see the role of PCC being rolled into that of the West Midlands Mayor. This creates an excellent opportunity to bring together strong political leadership with—and this is important—a targeted and effective use of resources.
The first knife bin was rolled out in Aldridge, and Mayor Andy Street joined us that day, recognising the need both for a holistic approach, and for us to stand together, shoulder to shoulder, to rise to the challenge of tackling the problem. He also vowed to put a stop to plans to close 30 police stations across the region, including my own in Aldridge, which is also an important part of the solution.
Another area that I would like the Minister to consider, perhaps with his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, is the role of licensing committees. I have seen examples where those committees need to work better and more effectively with the local police, for instance, when it comes to requests for curfews as a method of public protection in town centres with challenging night-time economies. The installation and enforcement of knife arches in night clubs and the provision of bleed kits are practical measures that could and should be mandated for specific venues, and I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that as well.
At this point, I would like to mention and pay tribute to those at The Queens pub in Pelsall. Back in January, they began fundraising for a defibrillator and a bleed kit. This autumn, after numerous raffles, a collection tin in the pub and generous support from people across the local community, both of those were installed in memory of local lad, Reagan, who, sadly, lost his life to knife crime in 2017.
As I draw my contribution to this debate to a conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the work that the Government and others are doing on this topic and the fact that they have shown themselves willing to undertake more to address the issue of heinous knife crime. I commend and welcome the actions to date, but it is clear that further action is required, and is required now, to avoid more lives simply becoming a number on a data spreadsheet, and also, importantly, to strengthen our communities. With that, I stand committed to the cause.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for sponsoring this critical debate and for her powerful opening speech. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime, which used to be called the APPG on knife crime and youth violence. Therein lies the problem: knife crime is often seen as an issue that affects just young people, but that is not the case. After I took up chairing that all-party group, with the support of its members we changed the name to reflect the nature of the crime and the number of young people who are being coerced and criminally exploited to the point where they are carrying knives. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will tell us how the Government will address that.
Knife crime has gone up by more than 70% in eight years, and the devastating impacts of this rise are being felt right across the country. My constituency of Vauxhall, just across the bridge from here, lies in the borough of Lambeth. Sadly, we saw more than 700 cases of knife crime in Lambeth in just one year alone, and over 200 of those cases caused horrific injury. It is important to offer some of the cases behind those statistics to understand the complexity of the trauma of knife crime.
In the summer, two men were victims of a suspected homophobic knife attack outside the Two Brewers in Clapham. Thankfully, the two victims were discharged from hospital shortly afterwards, but this attack was highly disturbing to many people in the LGBTQ+ community in Clapham and across London. Although serious injury and physical trauma were avoided, there was a huge amount of emotional and mental trauma attached to those attacks, and we must acknowledge that when we talk about knife crime. As the right hon. Lady said, we also have to consider the impact that it has on communities, the potential that it has to amplify violence against marginalised groups and the general fear that that can create.
There was another case in my constituency, very close to my church, very close to my old primary school and very close to where I used to live. On 1 May, in broad daylight, 31-year-old Johanita Dogbey was stabbed from behind by someone who was unknown to her. Since then, her family have been dealing with the devastating impact of losing their daughter, while fighting for justice and waiting for justice to come. I have referred to this before, but when you sit with grieving families in their front room, and you look at the pain and despair in their eyes, and glance over their shoulders and see the smiling, happy pictures, you just think, “Why?” Nothing can prepare you for that in this role. It is one of the hardest things that a number of us have had to do as elected representatives.
Every time I hear about another stabbing, or get a text from the police or an email update, I just think, “I hope this isn’t fatal.” Johanita’s death will leave a hole in the hearts of her family, but there must be support to deal with the personal trauma of such cases. The two cases that I have referenced show the diversity of the impact of knife crime. It creates trauma, worry and violence, but we must understand that the trauma will function differently in virtually all the different knife attacks that we have seen, not just in Lambeth but across the country.
We all recognise that dealing with knife crime cannot be party political. Every day, another community and family have to bury their loved one. They do not want us to bring party politics into it. For them the pain is raw. They just want answers, and to know how we can stop people carrying knives. No one-size-fits-all policy will stop all knife crime, or manage the trauma that it creates. We have to take a holistic approach, whether that means recognising the impact of knife crime on the LGBTQ+ community when they are targeted, recognising the true shock of knife crime for families and how we can provide support to loved ones, or recognising that we cannot fall into stereotypes about the causes, perpetrators or victims of knife crime when developing policy.
In my former role as the Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark, I authored a report on gang-associated girls and the impact it has on them. I was shocked to see from Metropolitan police data that just six girls and young women were identified in the Met police gangs matrix, and how limited the piecemeal provision was for helping to deal with the trauma that impacts women and girls. In our response to knife crime, we need to think a lot more about the psychological trauma, and recognise the signs of that trauma when dealing with cases—trauma from the incident, and the trauma that leads people to carry a knife in the first place.
I referred to child criminal exploitation. Childhood trauma has a specific impact from and on knife crime, and we need a specific holistic approach within our justice system to child criminal exploitation. It is painful to see children—some as young as seven—going through the criminal justice system. If we look back at the patterns, we see that those children have probably witnessed a stabbing, and have probably been coerced to carry drugs in county lines. If a child as young as 10 or 11, who should be in school in Lambeth in my constituency, has been arrested in Peterborough with a package of drugs on him, we need to ask ourselves how he got those drugs.
Wendy Morton
I think we all recognise the importance of the early years. This debate had originally been scheduled on a Thursday to follow a debate on the early years, which would have been timely. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to recognise the link with the early years and what happens in the family, which can be so influential on children as they grow up?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the right hon. Lady for that powerful intervention, which takes us back to childhood trauma and the childhood link. We need to start to have a holistic, wraparound approach with families and children—in some cases, those of primary school age. At the moment, a lot of support and funding is focused on secondary school children. In some cases, that is far too late; those children have been coerced to the point where they have joined gangs, and it is too late for them to turn their life around. Sadly, some of them will end up dead, so it is important that we tackle knife crime from a young age, teaching our young children about the dangers and why they should not carry a knife.
We know that some young people are scared. They are scared of the adults who are coercing them into a dangerous lifestyle. They are scared because, in some cases, they come from a dysfunctional family and their parents have broken up. They are scared because of the mental trauma from what they have witnessed. They are scared because they have received an embrace, and an older person from the gang has taken them in, as a family. These children want to be loved and to belong, yet they are belonging in the wrong place. It is important that, instead of criminalising such children—some of them from an early age—we recognise that they are being exploited. We should have a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation.
Members of the 2019 intake celebrated four years since being elected earlier this week. In January 2020, shortly after I was elected, I referred in my maiden speech to having been one of the first people to turn up when a young boy was stabbed, just across the road from my constituency, on De Laune Street in Kennington. That late afternoon in January, I was on my way to pick up my son from nursery. My daughter was in the back of the car; I had picked her up from reception. I mention that because I did not know what had happened, but someone was slumped on the road. As I got closer in the car and pulled over, it transpired that he had been stabbed.
I mentioned in my maiden speech that people were walking past us. That was really painful, because we are allowing ourselves to become desensitised to knife crime. I do not claim to be a first aid responder or anything —I am petrified of the sight of blood—but along with another lady who came out from the block of flats, I folded up a blanket, I think it was, and stemmed the blood. The long and short of it is that the ambulance came. My frantic call to the emergency services probably did not make sense because I was just screaming, “You need to get here now!” The poor call handler would have been thinking, “What is this woman rambling on about?” I was scared. I was just thinking, “This boy is going to die.”
Thankfully, the boy did not die. We manage to stem the blood, and he was lucky. During lockdown, I received an email from his teacher, who it turned out lives in my constituency. He said, “The young boy is making a good recovery, but thank you.” I know how frightening it can be for anyone to be in that situation, but we need to look at how we can help people to have the skills and means to stem the flow of blood as quickly and effectively as possible, because every second will make such a big difference after a trauma or stabbing.
I echo what the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said: I hope that the Minister will look at raising awareness of stab kits and the first aid response to knife crime, and how to distribute more of those stab kits in shops and other areas. I hope that he will recognise the value of a number of youth organisations, not just in my constituency but across the country, that work with some of the most vulnerable children and young adults, and help them to turn their lives around. The reality is that those organisations are working on a shoestring budget. Youth services are still not deemed to be a statutory provision. In London, with the support of the Mayor of London and City Hall, there is funding for a number of youth projects, including in my Vauxhall constituency. Those youth groups make such a big difference to the value of people’s lives. For a number of young people, the intervention of those groups, and the trust that the youth workers build with them, makes the difference between that young person living or dying.
That is the power of a valuable, well-funded youth service, so I hope that the Minister will recognise that the cuts to local government have had an impact. Many youth clubs have closed. Young adults should not be able to access such provision and extra-curricular activities only if their parents, carers or grandparents can afford them; they should be available to all young people, so that during those crucial hours between 3 pm and 7 pm after school, which is when a number of these incidents happen, our young people have something positive to be engaged in.
I will finish by saying that this year marked the 23rd anniversary of a stabbing that I think we all remember: that of Damilola Taylor on 27 November 2000. As I posted about him on the anniversary, we all remember the grainy image of the young boy skipping along outside Peckham library in the silver puffa jacket—a young life taken so tragically. I mention that case because I think it was a turning point when, no matter where people were in the country, they wanted to see an end to knife crime and an end to stabbings. It pains me that here in 2023 we can recount so many other tragic cases that have happened since that one, and we still do not have a grip on the situation. Yes, in some places the figures have gone down, but every knife crime, every stabbing that results in someone dying, every grieving family is one too far. Those families do not want to be known as a statistic; they just want us all to work in a cross-party way to address this scourge.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). She gave a powerful and thought-provoking speech; I would struggle to find anything in it that I disagreed with, and I suspect the whole House would join me in paying tribute to her for stepping in to help a victim of stabbing in her own constituency. She may well be terrified of blood, but it took real courage to be there and to provide assistance, and she has given us all an awful lot to reflect upon.
It is important to recognise that nowhere is exempt from the harm caused by knives. They are a danger in rural areas just as they are in inner cities. As you may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, prior to my election to this House I spent many years involved in the criminal justice system, including as a non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, as a member of the Sentencing Council, as a magistrate and as a board member of the Youth Justice Board, and it is the young whom I am most concerned about. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate, because it enables us to talk about the impact of knife crime on the young in particular.
According to the most recent statistics, a fifth of all knife crime is committed by those under the age of 17, who are legally children. When I was a magistrate in the youth court, I would often find young boys—they were invariably boys rather than girls—brought before the bench for carrying a bladed article. When I asked why they were carrying the bladed article, almost every young boy would give the same answer: they carried the knife for their own protection. It made them feel safe. Astonishingly, the Ben Kinsella Trust has reported that children as young as nine believe that.
Tragically, nothing could be further from the truth. Carrying a knife does not make them safer; in fact, it puts them in far more danger. As well as the threat to their own life, it risks a rapid journey on the path to serious criminality. Put simply, carrying a knife makes someone much more likely to use it or have it used against them, and the consequences can be devastating. We have seen too many awful examples in recent months and years of gangs wielding machetes and children stabbing other children at school.
We all know that prevention is better than cure, so I am very pleased that the Government are committed to tackling the horror of knives on our streets nationally, with an investment of more than £110 million in 2023-24 to fight knife crime, including a focus on 20 violence reduction units and funds for hotspot policing in the most seriously affected areas. I welcome that.
In my own area, there has been considerable success in tackling knife crime, and I put on record my thanks to the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Matt Barber, for his focus on that. He has adopted a zero-tolerance approach to knife crime called Operation Deter, which was launched in Milton Keynes in the middle of last year, came to my Aylesbury constituency soon afterwards and is now being rolled out across the entire Thames Valley force area.
Op Deter’s main objective is to make better use of charging and remanding offenders aged 18 and over to court, sending a robust message to anyone found in possession of a knife: “If you are caught, you will be dealt with incredibly swiftly by both the police and the courts.” Overall, since July 2022, Op Deter has seen well over 1,000 arrests, and about half of those arrested have been charged and remanded into custody. The scheme has resulted in approximately 100 custodial sentences in addition to numerous suspended sentences and community orders.
That speedy intervention and no-nonsense approach by Thames Valley police is helping to make Aylesbury safer, with a clear understanding that there is zero tolerance for knife crime in our town. I am very pleased that in some parts of the force area, the local youth offending team is immediately notified when a child is arrested for carrying a knife, and a representative of that youth offending team then attends the police station within 90 minutes to meet the young person, giving them the maximum incentive to engage as early as possible.
I would like that approach to become much more widespread. I recognise that it is resource intensive, but it is important to get help and practical advice to those young people as soon as is possible. That echoes, I think, the hon. Member for Vauxhall’s argument that the reasons young children carry knives are frequently very complex. We need to get a much better understanding of them and tackle the causes. As I have said in this place before, it is not about finding an excuse for those people, but about looking at the causes and trying to tackle them to avoid repetition.
I was very pleased to learn that Op Deter has been highlighted as an example of best practice in a recent “In Focus” report by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which concentrates on innovative and effective approaches to tackling serious violence. I hope that that article will spur other police forces to look at similar activities in other parts of the country.
In my local area, we also have other initiatives to combat knife crime, recognising that it is not just a job for the police, as other hon. Members have said. I recently attended an excellent community event to tackle anti-social behaviour that was held in Elmhurst and organised by Buckinghamshire Council, the local authority. The neighbourhood policing team there have developed strategies to divert vulnerable young people away from knives that encompass other parts of that community, and their work with children and young adults is very encouraging.
One effective initiative has been the use of three knife amnesty bins—importantly, including one that is not in the police station. It is outside Southcourt Baptist Church, where people feel much safer going to deposit their knives or their bladed articles.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes a really important point; from the learning that I have done through the James Brindley Foundation this point about anonymity and knife bins is very clear. Does he agree that we must continuously seek to create opportunities for safe disposal of those types of weapons? It must be done in the right way, otherwise it fails before it even starts.
Rob Butler
My right hon. Friend is 100% correct. More than half the knives that have been deposited in Aylesbury were deposited at Southcourt Baptist Church, presumably because people feel safe. I know that the neighbourhood policing team in Aylesbury are looking for other sites that are away from the police station where they can install knife bins. Of course, the slight challenge is that it must be something that is absolutely secure and where other people cannot get to that bin to access the bladed articles and use them for nefarious purposes, but clearly there are places that can be found and that are successful, and I absolutely endorse what she says about encouraging that.
Another approach Southcourt Baptist Church is working hard on is providing constructive activities for children to help reduce the risk of their becoming involved in criminal activities in the first place. Boxing is proving particularly popular and effective in giving young people something constructive to do with their time, so that they do not risk getting caught up with other people who would encourage them to take part in illegal activities.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a powerful speech. He talks about the fantastic work that that Baptist church is doing in his constituency. My first youth club setting was at my church hall. Does he recognise that we need to work with the faith communities to look at an approach to knife crime? For a number of families, their first port of call and the first people they turn to are their faith leaders.
Rob Butler
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I was saying a little earlier, it is about different parts of the community. It is not always the role of the Government or the local authority to provide those facilities, because they do not necessarily set up the right atmosphere for young people. It is interesting that people will go into a church or another kind of faith community, or indeed an alternative community area, because they feel safe and trusted there, not judged. It is vital that everybody recognises that.
To that end, other organisations in Aylesbury are having a positive impact on vulnerable children. Just a couple of months ago, I visited the Aylesbury Youth Motor Project, a special garage that provides vocational training to children. It was inspiring to see the impact on young people of that garage’s hands-on approach to courses and the strong mentoring provided by the mechanics. They are primarily mechanics rather than trained youth workers or qualified teachers, but they are people to whom those particular young people can relate—they trust the mechanics and listen to their advice in a way that they perhaps do not with what we might consider more conventional authority figures. The boys at the Aylesbury Youth Motor Project were very blunt with me: traditional education does not suit everybody, and going to that garage was keeping them off the streets and stopping them committing crimes. I did not have to put those words in their mouths; they told me clearly. Projects like that are incredibly important.
I do not think any of us would disagree that knife crime is a serious blight on our communities. Blades are used by criminals to kill and maim. They have become glamourised, but there is no glamour in death and serious injury, and there is no excuse for carrying a knife. I am very pleased that Aylesbury is seeing success in tackling that menace. I will continue to work with all the groups there to make our town even safer. I encourage Ministers, not just in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice but across the whole of Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, to look at the work not only of Thames Valley police but of the likes of Southcourt Baptist Church and the Aylesbury Youth Motor Project, because it will take the whole community to stop the scourge of knife crime.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
This has been an important and constructive debate. I commend the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. The right hon. Lady gave an excellent speech. I was particularly struck by what she said about “The Knife Angel” in her constituency. As she said, it is an incredibly poignant symbol reflecting on violence and knife crime.
Wendy Morton
Perhaps I could have been clearer. For absolute clarity, “The Knife Angel” is in Walsall borough but not in my constituency—I am on one side of the borough. It is in the town of Walsall, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that clarification, but her point was important none the less.
Often, we talk of the perpetrators of knife crime—it is right that we do—but we should never forget that it is too often young people who are the victims. As Members of this House, we owe it to the victims and their loved ones to come up with solutions to this epidemic, and to ensure that no child or parent faces the tragic consequences of knife crime on our streets. In that spirit, there have been a number of considered and thoughtful contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke movingly about the trauma that knife crime causes her constituents and about the pain experienced by the victim’s family. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) effectively brought to bear his long experience of the criminal justice system. He made an important point about tackling the causes to avoid repetition.
I will take this opportunity to tell the tragic story of Ronan Kanda, and his family’s campaign for justice. I know that the shadow policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), met the family alongside their local MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), to learn about Ronan’s story. Ronan, a beloved son and brother, was just 16 years old when he was killed while walking home in Wolverhampton. Just a few yards from his front door, Ronan was attacked from behind by two 16-year-olds carrying a machete and a ninja sword. Ronan was stabbed twice and suffered wounds to his back and chest. Tragically, he died at the scene. It was later revealed that the perpetrators of this heinous act had mistaken Ronan for someone else—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because this is a very sensitive and very sad matter, but I want to be certain that we are observing the sub judice rules. I am sure that he is well aware of what he can and cannot say, but I just want to be certain that nothing he says will prejudice anything that might come before the courts.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can give that assurance. I have been incredibly careful about describing the circumstances of the case, as I will be able to confirm in just a moment. Thank you.
The weapons used in the attack had been bought online by the perpetrators, who were just 16 years old themselves, using another person’s ID. They collected the items from a local post office on the day of the attack. In July of this year, they were sentenced to 16 years and 18 years in prison respectively for their crime.
Understandably, Ronan’s family have been completely devastated by his tragic loss. Courageously, they now campaign for ninja swords—the type of knife used in Ronan’s murder—to be taken off the streets once and for all, so that no other family should suffer the loss that they have suffered. The Government are right to want to give police more powers to seize and destroy such weapons, and they will have our support. However, we do not believe that the current ban goes far enough, as it still does not include the type of sword that killed Ronan. Will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for that, or, better still, will he confirm that the Government’s position is that such swords should be covered under forthcoming legislation?
During these debates, we must never forget the human cost of knife crime for victims and their families, as in Ronan’s case. Many families struggle to comprehend the senseless murder of their loved one. The strength of Ronan’s family in saying, “Never again should anyone suffer our pain,” should inspire us all in this House to act accordingly. That is needed now more than ever because, sadly, more young lives are being lost.
Last year saw the highest number of people killed with a knife for over 70 years. The biggest increase was among young boys aged 16 to 17. Knife crime rates remain stubbornly high. Compared with 2015, total knife crime is up 70%, including record levels of knife-enabled rape and threats to kill. Last year, 75% of teenage homicides involved a knife or sharp instrument. As a consequence, it is now thought that more than 200,000 children are vulnerable to serious violence. Between 2021 and 2022, a record number of children were victims of crime. We need decisive action now.
As I am sure the Minister would agree, the first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. On these fundamental questions, the Government need to show leadership in turning the tide on this knife crime epidemic. Labour has, for our part, set a route forward. Our community policing guarantee will put police back into town centres and neighbourhoods to make streets safe again, with increased patrols and 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers. Too often in recent years, criminals have gone unpunished while victims have suffered the consequences. This cannot continue. Labour will put an end to that scandal.
Allied to those plans, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), set out our proposals for a new national programme, working across Departments, to give Britain’s young people the best start in life. The “Young Futures” programme would act as a Sure Start for young people. It will also include a specific strand of activity targeted at young people most at risk of being drawn into violent crime, and will deliver help for young people who are struggling with their mental health. That will support our aim of halving serious violence, including knife crime and youth violence, within a decade—tackling crime and tackling the causes of crime. Tackling the scourge of knife crime will require a cross-Government approach, new youth hubs, and proper local plans to identify those who are most at risk and help them access the support they need. It also means Government Departments, schools and local services working together so that services operate around young people and their families, rather than in separate silos. It means getting the basics right, with more police officers on the street and working in our communities to bring criminals to justice. This is a serious issue, and it requires a serious response. Those on the Opposition Benches stand ready to meet the challenge.
The Minister for Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
May I join the shadow Minister in agreeing that this has been an important and constructive debate, and in praising my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing it and all Members who have contributed so constructively and expertly? I will start by picking up two points in my right hon. Friend’s speech, before picking up more of the threads. I join her in welcoming the campaign by her local newspaper The Express and Star to highlight this really important issue. I also welcome the role of the police and crime commissioner being rolled into that of the Mayor of the West Midlands. I agree with her that that will be a constructive move, and I look forward to it with her.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) spoke powerfully and with authority, as she always does, and I will comment on some of the points that she raised. I commend her for the work done by the all-party parliamentary group on child criminal exploitation and knife crime, and I acknowledge the change in name that she has championed. She spoke powerfully and reflected on her maiden speech, and she mentioned some youth organisations. She had a constructive debate across the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who acknowledged the work of voluntary organisations, churches and other faith groups.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury for mentioning Southcourt Baptist church and the excellent work that it has done. I acknowledge his expertise as a former board member of the Youth Justice Board and a former justice of the peace. I was a youth court aficionado in my younger days—as a young barrister, I should add. Carrying a knife does not make someone safer—quite the contrary.
May I address directly the shadow Minister’s point about swords, which is a serious one? Since the launch of the consultation to which I will turn in a moment, there has been interest in extending the ban to swords, and I understand the reasoning. However, the police have told us that the greatest risk at the moment is the use of zombie-style knives and machetes, so that is the focus of the work. It will be kept under review, and I am grateful to him for raising that issue.
May I now turn to some of the more specific issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills? Both she and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned violence reduction units. He mentioned that 20 have been rolled out across the country, delivering a range of early intervention and prevention programmes to divert people away from a life of crime. The approach is working and is a good start, and the Grip hotspots are having an effect. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will welcome that, and I can confirm that the West Midlands police receive funding, and rightly so, for both of those programmes.
May I turn to the consultation, which has been mentioned a number of times? Earlier this year, there were five proposals to tackle knife crime during the course of that consultation. We have been taking them forward and will do so in a suitable way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asks me how and when. As a former member of the Committee of Selection, she might like to look out in the new year for a particular statutory instrument Committee that will be of interest to her. I cannot confirm the precise date, but I know that she will have ways and means of finding out precisely how to get on to that Committee and to be a strong voice during the passage of that statutory instrument. We will introduce a ban on certain types of large knives that seem to appeal to those who want to use them as weapons. We will give the police more powers to seize those dangerous weapons, and create a new offence of possession of a bladed weapon with intent to harm, as well as increasing sentences.
May I turn to some of the other points that have been raised, and to some of the other actions that the Government are taking? Let me touch on serious violence reduction orders. In April we launched a pilot for serious violence reduction orders, with the west midlands being one of the four pilot areas. These civil orders give the police the authority to stop and search known knife and weapon carriers, and they are designed both to deter and to protect.
One of the most important things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned was cross-Government working. She was absolutely right to do so, and a number of others picked up on this theme. That is absolutely right, because tackling knife crime requires a truly cross-Government approach. We are working very closely with other Departments, and I shall mention just three. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently announced the new Building Futures programme, which will provide mentoring and life skills training to those at risk of falling out of education—the Minister sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), is nodding vigorously in support of that. There is also a new summer jobs programme targeted at 2,600 young people at risk of involvement in youth violence and crime.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for highlighting those really important points. My constituency of Vauxhall is home to the wonderful south bank, and a number of organisations do powerful work in getting young people from diverse and untraditional backgrounds into the creative industry and into arts and media. They need more funding for that.
Michael Tomlinson
I invite the hon. Lady to lobby the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If she stays for the next debate, she may even be able to lobby a Minister in person, but her bid has been heard loud and clear.
I turn now to the Department for Education, which is doing some work with a project called SAFE—Support, Attain, Fulfil, Exceed. There is £30 million-worth of funding for the taskforces. They are being delivered in 10 serious violence hotspots and aim to keep young people engaged in mainstream education. I will also mention the Ministry of Justice, because it has been mentioned during the debate. There is a programme called Turnaround, which provides extra funding for youth offending teams to intervene early and to ensure that children who are on the cusp of offending or being targeted are connected.
In the minute or so that I have left, may I close by thanking right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this very constructive debate? I agree that the scourge of knife crime is not a party political issue; it is a cross-party issue. I pay tribute not just to the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, but to the parents of Jimmy and the Mizen Foundation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for raising that. May I also pay tribute to the family of James Brindley and the Brindley Foundation? I know how hard it is to lose a young family member. In paying tribute to James Brindley’s family and others, may I say that they are continuing to ensure that something good might come from such tragedies?
Wendy Morton
I simply want to thank the Members who have contributed to this debate after a very busy week. It demonstrates how, on topics such as this, the House comes together. We will continue to ask questions and to challenge the Government, but I think we all accept that this is a very complex problem. To tackle a problem, we need to really understand it. I feel assured that we will all continue to work together, because we know how important this problem is.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, at business questions, the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) made a factually inaccurate and outlandish claim, which he may wish to come to the House to correct. I should say that I have notified him.
Can you inform me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether making this accusation is appropriate? I will explain further. The hon. Member alleged that the chair of the Mid Devon District Council scrutiny committee, whom he named directly, was hosting a Christmas party funded by local government funds. That simply is not true. The party that the chair of the scrutiny committee, Councillor Rachel Gilmour, will be throwing on Sunday—it is open to anyone who wishes to join—will be funded by private funds. She will be paying for it herself. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to invite the hon. Member to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the veracity of anything that anyone says in this House. Those are often matters of opinion. It would appear that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Of course, I do not know the facts. The hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to draw attention to his disagreement with the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) over the facts in question—I am pleased to hear that he notified that hon. Member of his intention to raise the point of order—and I can only say that he has done so, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Three and Vodafone: Potential Merger
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merger of Three and Vodafone.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate on what will be one of the largest mergers we see in this country this year. The merger has profound implications for the security, the costs and the quality of that everyday essential in the lives of our constituents: their mobile phone.
The debate is not simply about a merger; it is on three significant questions about the way in which our economy is now run. First—this is at the heart of the debate and a big question—is our investment security regime fit for purpose in a world where the threats are continuing to multiply? Secondly, are we are prepared to see the good, honest force of competition continue to wither? Thirdly, in a country where business investment continues to disappoint, will the deal help or not?
The facts are pretty straightforward. Three, which is owned by CK Hutchison, and Vodafone have announced a deal to merge. It is a £15 billion deal, which will create the largest operator in the market—bigger than EE or O2. Crucially, it will reduce the number of mobile network operators from four to three, and the merged entity will be enormous. If the merger goes through, it will control half the UK’s mobile spectrum. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at the competition dimensions, but we need to understand what the Government—either the Cabinet office or the Minister in his place—will do to ensure that the deal is brought in to the Investment Security Unit for the hardest possible review under the terms of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
The case for the merger has been well rehearsed, and the Business and Trade Committee has taken evidence to try to unpack it. Three and Vodafone say that the deal will create a bigger firm that can compete much more effectively. They say that it will stimulate investment in the mobile network operator market and allow them to eliminate the overlap between their networks and use that money to build a mobile network with 25,000 masts, which will extend mobile coverage into the notspots that are so frustrating for many of our constituents. However, we need answers to some basic questions, and those start with national security, which must always be the principal consideration for us in the House when we look at such questions.
We cannot avoid the fact that the proposed deal will put 49% of the merged Three-Vodafone business into the hands of the CK group. That group is based in Hong Kong and, as such, falls under the ambit of the Hong Kong national security law. As the House knows, once upon a time, Hong Kong was considered meaningfully different from mainland China, but the introduction of the national security law has destroyed Hong Kong’s legal autonomy. It now provides Chinese authorities with the power to demand user data from companies under the threat of fines, asset seizures, or indeed imprisonment.
Furthermore, CK’s leaders are not unconnected to the Chinese state—far from it. Li Ka-shing, the founder of CK Hutchison, has in the past voiced his support for China’s draconian moves in Hong Kong. His son, Victor Li, is a member of the 14th national committee of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference of the People's Republic of China, and is a member of the Chief Executive’s council of advisers of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Mr Li is a supporter of John Lee, the chief executive of Hong Kong and the former police chief who led the efforts to crack down on the pro-democracy protest movement in 2019.
Those facts are completely central to the debate on whether the merger should go through. As the Intelligence and Security Committee has made clear in its brilliant report on China, the problem is China’s whole-of-state approach. In that report, it noted that
“Chinese state-owned and non-state-owned companies, as well as academic and cultural establishments and ordinary Chinese citizens, are liable to be (willingly or unwillingly) co-opted into espionage and interference operations overseas”.
That was its considered judgment.
That warning comes on top of those we have already had from Richard Moore, the chief of MI6, who declared in July that China aims to strike deals with other countries that allow it to capture data on citizens and national projects. He said that
“Chinese authorities are not hugely troubled by questions of personal privacy or individual data security.”
Furthermore, Dr Alexi Drew, in a brilliant report commissioned by Unite the union, found that risks of data transfer and data collection naturally, obviously and directly create risks of surveillance, blackmail and economic intelligence gathering.
Of course, in Three, the CK group already runs a mobile company, but the Three-Vodafone merger will give the CK group a 49% share in a combined company that will run some of the most sensitive mobile and data contracts in the country, including NHS 111, police departments, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, and the monitoring system in the Cabinet Office. The merger will radically extend CK Hutchison’s access to UK telecoms data from 9.5 million users to more than 27 million users—an almost threefold increase in the number of users, and their data, to which the CK group will have access. These are not just worries that we should be debating in this House, but worries that have already prompted our allies to act. On 15 September last year, President Biden announced that the risk of access to Americans’ private data would be a factor in blocking investment deals.
On Tuesday, the National Security and Investment Sub-Committee of the Business and Trade Committee held its first ministerial meetings and hearings with the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). That was the first chance that we as a House have had to cross-examine a Minister on the UK investment screening process. In that cross-examination, I put it to the Minister that our investment security process is now out of date, and asked her whether there is a case for updating the investment security regime in the light of modern threats as we now understand them. She said, “Yes”, and also that
“the regime we have at the moment is pretty robust, but it started off a couple of years ago, and we need to be aware of how new technologies could be an issue that we need to incorporate into the process.”
She went on to say that
“I have a personal view; I do think that we should be further investigating the issues around data capability”
and concluded that
“My personal view is that the accumulation of data against citizens of the UK is something that we need to explore if it can be exploited.”
There we have it: the head of MI6 is warning about the risks of China exfiltrating data; our allies are putting up and updating investment security regimes to stop Chinese access to data; and out of an abundance of prudence, we are blocking companies such as Huawei and TikTok because we are worried about Chinese access to data, yet the Vodafone-Three merger would allow a group with strong links to the Chinese state unparalleled access to data that flows through contracts with the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and the pan-Government protective monitoring service for the Cabinet Office—
Liam Byrne
Along with the police. To cap it all, we now have a Minister warning that our investment security regime is out of date with the threats as we now understand them.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate before the House. I am here primarily to listen, rather than contribute, but it is overwhelmingly clear that the relatively new Investment Security Unit is tailor-made to consider a merger proposal such as this one.
However, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he gets his wish and the Investment Security Unit does consider the merger proposal, the Intelligence and Security Committee would be blocked from scrutinising the work of that unit? The Government originally said that all its work should have been overseen and scrutinised by what was the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The unit is now in the Cabinet Office, but even now, we are still not being allowed to scrutinise it. There is something very strange, if not sinister, going on. We have demanded the right to look at the classified elements of that unit’s work.
Finally, if the right hon. Gentleman were allowed into a secure room to look at the documentation that will come before the Investment Security Unit, if it is ever allowed to look at this deal, does he believe that his looking at that documentation without cleared staff, without being able to take notes and without being able to go away and discuss it with anybody else—as we on the Intelligence and Security Committee can do under our special regime—would amount to effective scrutiny of something with such clear security implications?
Liam Byrne
I am very grateful to the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee for that intervention. As the Chair of the National Security and Investment Sub-Committee, I have to warn the House that I do not believe we have access to the information that would allow us to scrutinise Government decisions on investment security effectively. His Committee’s report on China put it rather well:
“the Government does not want there to be any meaningful scrutiny of sensitive investment deals”.
It reminded us:
“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’—it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee. We have not yet finished our scrutiny process for this year, but as it stands today, I cannot give the House an assurance that we have in place an effective oversight and scrutiny regime for matters of significant consequence for the investment and economic security of our country.
The reason this issue is significant is that the hon. Member for Wealden and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) have both been asked whether the Vodafone-Three merger will be assessed under the National Security and Investment Act, and have not responded. The risk is that the Government are now keeping more secrets than the companies involved.
When the Minister who is set to wind up responded to the debate earlier in the year, he said:
“I am sure that the questions raised, which are legitimate ones, will be properly taken into account…if it triggers the process under the National Security and Investment Act.”—[Official Report, 19 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 502WH.]
In the light of the warnings the House has heard this afternoon, of what we now know about the CK group, of our allies updating their security investment regimes and of the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Wealden telling us that she does not think the investment security process is fit for the threats we now face, it is incumbent on the Minister today to assure us that this deal is being called in for the hardest of scrutiny by the Investment Scrutiny Unit in the Cabinet Office. As I understand it, the Act does allow the Minister to update the House on what he is doing, and I call on him to provide us with the information that could put our minds to rest, if indeed the decision is not to block the deal, for which there is a good case.
There are two further points: one is about competition and one is about investment. Successive research that we on the Business and Trade Committee have seen shows that there is a material negative impact on competition when the number of mobile network operators goes from four to three. There was disagreement in the evidence we took as a Committee, but particularly persuasive was the evidence from Professor Valletti, who is the former chief competition economist of the European Commission. He bluntly warned us:
“I have studied it, I have published about it and I have found no evidence that tells us that by consolidating there is more investment. Instead, I have found that every time there is a merger, prices go up.”
His research shows that prices decline slower in markets with three mobile network operators compared with those with four. Unite research confirms that prices are 20% higher in European countries with three rather than four networks.
The final point is about investment. We do not have enough investment in our mobile network infrastructure, which creates big problems for our constituents. Both Vodafone and Three have promised that this will lead to a surge of new investment. The challenge, I have to say, is that the investment being proposed does not look materially bigger than the investment that Three and Vodafone are each already proposing. The risk is that this is funded through 1,000 to 1,600 job cuts, which is the number of job cuts that Unite the union has estimated. Certainly, as Professor Valletti has found, there is not much evidence that consolidating networks improves investment.
The Deputy Prime Minister has called for evidence and thoughts about how the investment screening and security regime needs to be updated. This is an important debate about the economic security of our country in a very different world. We have heard enough about the risks that this new merger presents. We have a black box, frankly, when it comes to the process by which the Government judge these threats. I do not think that that is a satisfactory position for the House to be in. The House needs some reassurance that this proposed merger will get called in under the National Security and Investment Act for the hardest possible scrutiny, and if there is any hint of a risk, let us be prudent and block the deal.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate. How pleased I am to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). I offer my belated congratulations on his appointment to the Business and Trade Committee and endorse his comments on the security nature of the potential effects on this country. However, my remarks will be channelled more to understanding the potential effect of the merger on our constituents and consumers. I particularly thank Which? and others for providing insights to my contribution to this debate.
Will this merger be good or bad for all of our constituents? That is the question to ask. It is very clear from the briefings that Vodafone and Three have offered that their core aim is to advance the roll-out of 5G, or at least that is what they say. Some of us in this House have been in two debates already this week about connectivity and the issues that we face across the United Kingdom, particularly in rural areas. We are asking ourselves whether we should be allowing the rigorous commercial pursuit of 5G, when there are some people in the country who are lucky to have 3G, let alone 4G. Should we be enabling and allowing enormous businesses that will become still larger to have free licence to forget rural parts of the country, in my case rural West Dorset?
There is such as a thing as the universal service obligation. It is meant to protect those who are in the worst possible situation with respect to connectivity. That, I am afraid to say, does not appear to be working, and we should ask ourselves why. Increasingly, it is my opinion that we have a weak and ineffective regulator that is not protecting the rights of consumers and residents. I find it incredible, for example, that the Vodafone map says that certain parishes and villages are covered with a mobile signal, when in actual fact they are not, and Ofcom, the regulator, does nothing about it. Because the map says that, it often obviates the need to provide connectivity for those people.
I emphasise the point that this merger will give a third of the UK market to one firm. That is absolutely incredible in this day and age, when we are clearly moving in a technological direction where new developments and innovations are key. The use of mobile phones—Androids and so on—is increasing, and the fact that we are, in effect, entrusting a third of the nation’s connectivity to one firm is questionable.
We need to understand some of the experiences that this nation has had so far with companies such as Vodafone. It is relatively common knowledge that there is a big question about Vodafone’s contribution—or, should I say, lack thereof—to the Exchequer. It pays, as far as I can see, no corporation tax for being a multibillion-pound organisation. In fairness, it will say that it invests a lot of money in infrastructure in the country, and I am not disputing that point. However, we should ask ourselves whether it is right to enable a business to enlarge still further when, I assume, it will continue to operate on the same guidelines, under which it pays little, if any, corporation tax. We should not think that this is new. From my research, I found that this situation first arose in 2012. This has already been going on for 11 years, and it is important that the House takes these matters into consideration as part of this debate.
The scale of investment that we have seen so far, as far as I can see, is frankly a bit of a joke. The investment that I have been told is forthcoming in my constituency is something that I just don’t see. Indeed, Vodafone itself had to apologise for basically misleading me and for guaranteeing that we would fix various connectivity issues in certain parts of my constituency. It is a real concern to me that we are in this situation, particularly when I want to research this matter and it always refers to the currency in euros rather than in pounds. I invite hon. Members to look on the Vodafone website to research this and understand it. It really does give me cause for concern.
Navendu Mishra
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution with great interest. He made a point earlier about misleading information. The House has been told that the primary function of this merger is to increase investment in infrastructure in the UK. Does he agree that the primary function of this merger is pure profit—it is basically corporate greed?
Chris Loder
I thank the hon. Member for his kind intervention. He almost takes the words out of my mouth, as I go on to the next part of my speech.
The case that is being put, as I understand it from the brief received from both Vodafone and Three, is that the merger will support increasing amounts of investment. They go on to say further that the merger will generate £700 million of savings. When we start to unpack it, what we are actually dealing with here is massive job cuts. We expect to see up to 1,600 people lose their jobs in the United Kingdom alone. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned that, but what he failed to include in his remarks is that a programme of 11,000 job cuts is already going on globally within Vodafone. While I am not the biggest advocate or supporter of Unite the union, I can well understand and agree with the point that the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) makes.
I will progress my remarks to talk about the effect on the consumer in respect of prices and mobile phone bills. It is right that we consider what has happened in the past few years in Australia, where Vodafone has undertaken a merger with TPG. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report showed that Australian prices all rose and that investment fell. I understand that the rise in prices is contested by some operators, but I could not find it contested that investment fell—and not just by a little bit, but by 45%. That is a considerable amount, and it gives me cause for concern when looking at this situation. We have to ask ourselves: to what extent do we believe what we are being presented with? That gives me even greater concern when I consider the national security matters that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill raised.
My constituency of West Dorset has 400 square miles and 132 parishes, and we have ropey coverage, to say the least. I have had to look in the mirror and ask myself, “Will this merger help the 82,000 constituents who depend on mobile connectivity increasingly every day?” Some 97% of the businesses in West Dorset are small or micro-sized. They do not have enormous amounts of cash to put in substantial investment, so that question is important.
For me, given what I have seen so far, it comes down to a question of trust. That is why I have a slight problem with what is being presented to us. Vodafone’s coverage map for my constituency is wrong. I have contested it, and I have gone to the regulator about it. Vodafone says that most parts of rural West Dorset have a signal. I am sorry, but the places that it indicates do have signal do not. That shows how weak the regulator Ofcom is in dealing with this issue. It is allowing operators to get away scot-free under the guise of a universal service obligation that is not delivering what is necessary for those people. We find it not just once or twice, but time and time again.
I went to visit the small village of Stoke Abbott, which is on the outskirts of the beautiful town of Beaminster, earlier in the year. I was pleased—it was somewhat surprising, I thought—to have secured a number of commitments to improve that village’s appalling level of connectivity. Regrettably, Vodafone had to correct itself, because it had misled me. It would no longer continue those improvements, and it went on to say that it believed that the problems would be solved by improved 4G coverage. Well, I am afraid that those improvements have not happened to date. As I said, this comes down to trust. Vodafone did apologise for its somewhat disingenuous statements, but that shows what we are dealing with here, and it also exposes the weakness of the regulator in addressing these issues in a meaningful way.
Given my personal experience of the organisation and how it treats my constituents, why would we want to afford it the ability to become larger and more dominant in the market? In my opinion, it has such a bad record of customer service to local people. I do not know if anyone else here has the joy of being a Vodafone customer, as I do. Its customer service hotline is known as 191. If I ring that number, it is virtually impossible to speak to someone to get help. Many of my constituents have had the same experience. It is just incredible that, if they are fortunate enough to get through to someone who can help them, they are directed to what they call the director’s office, which is just a shambles. It takes months to resolve the slightest difficulty. The situation that I outlined earlier, whereby coverage is not as some say it is, is appalling.
One of my fine constituents from Maiden Newton got in touch with me only a few days ago to share her experience. In fairness to Vodafone, she is a customer of Three, which, by and large, provides its customers with a reasonable service. My constituent put it well in her email:
“How can we level up as a rural community when it’s hard to tune in to digital radio or make a phone call? As a small business owner I often have to do business on the move, but find I can’t access anything as the signal is too poor.”
She goes on to say that, clearly, something has happened in the last six months. The network provider had told her that work needed to be done on a mast in the area, but that still has not been sorted. These issues just go on and on.
I was grateful to Three and Vodafone for providing me with the briefing. I thought it was reasonably interesting, but I was looking for the word “customer” in there, and I could not see it once. If anybody else was able to find it, I will stand corrected, and I may need to get my eyes tested again. That indicates to me the real drive behind the merger. The briefing that we have been provided with, for which I am grateful, shows what this is about.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The hon. Member and I are neighbours, and I congratulate him on talking about the rural character of his constituency and how the merger might affect his constituents as customers. I also suggest that it would affect his and all our constituents as citizens because, should the merger take place, it would make users of this phone service subject to China’s national intelligence law, article 7 of which states:
“Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work”.
That will be the obligation on CK Hutchison and its employees. Does he agree?
Chris Loder
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill made a lot of those points, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and I agreed with them earlier in my speech. This area needs much greater scrutiny. I remember not long after first coming to this House a few years ago, we had considerable concern about the behaviour of companies that was taking place, or could take place, that would put our national security at risk. That is why I support the comments made earlier by both right hon. Gentlemen.
Sir Julian Lewis
On that point, I recall that in 2021, while the National Security and Investment Bill was going through the House, the Government repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that in any conflict between economic interest and national security their policy was that national security would come first. That was the whole point of bringing in the legislation. Now it appears that there is even a question mark on whether the structures set up in the legislation will examine this proposed questionable deal, let alone allow it to be effectively scrutinised by Parliament once they have done that examination.
Chris Loder
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a very valid point. I recall the debates we had in the House several years ago and I think they were very meaningful. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond to some of the genuine concerns that a number of us in this House have.
In its first line, the Vodafone and Three brief states that the current UK telecoms market—their own industry—is dysfunctional, and that consolidation is needed to remedy that. I regret to say to the House that, having gone through that and some of the excellent briefings received from other organisations, I am not convinced that the merger is the right thing to do. A number of points have been made on national security, competition and the consumer that indicate to me that it is not necessarily in the interests of the country or the consumer. The brief confirms that, talking about billions of pounds—or euros, on the website—which appear to be the only thing they are interested in. It is of huge concern to me that we are going from four operators to three, given the situation we face. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider what action to take so that the regulator not only has proper teeth to sort out the issues I have mentioned but that in any future decisions genuine consideration is given to whether a potential merger is in the interests of the country and our constituents. I am afraid that at the moment I am not convinced that it is the right thing to do.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of Unite the union. I am grateful to Unite for providing a detailed briefing on the merger. It has been campaigning on the issue for a long time, because, as both Members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—who have contributed so far mentioned, almost 1,600 jobs could be lost. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill for securing the debate. He has done a lot of work in the background, including as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
There are two key points I want to cover. First, the merger is bad news for customers. There are 650 constituencies represented in this House and I believe this merger impacts every single one. If the merger goes through it will mean higher costs for consumers. Currently more than 2.2 million households in the UK are struggling with the cost of mobile services, so it is not as if they are in a good position to start with. The merger will reduce competition and increase monopoly and pricing power for these operators.
I want to say a little about Greater Manchester, because that is the part of the world that I represent in the House. A Liverpool University study found in 2020 that as many as 1.2 million residents of Greater Manchester alone faced some form of digital exclusion, while the Office for National Statistics has found that 40% of Greater Manchester benefit claimants have very low digital engagement and 23% of residents are not using digital services because of lack of money. This merger will increase prices and dramatically worsen the situation.
The hon. Member for West Dorset talked about his patch. He represents a rural part of England, while my constituency is more urban, but there will be people in each and every constituency who are digitally excluded, in many cases because of a lack of financial resources. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned the research conducted by the former chief competition economist at the European Commission. According to that research, we can expect an average increase of about £300 in mobile phone bills. Reference has been made to Vodafone’s customer service. I am not a Three customer, so I do not know what its customer service is like, but we are looking at nearly 1,600 job losses. Given the cost of living crisis, not only is the merger terrible news for UK customers, but the livelihoods of the people who work in these businesses is on the line.
I will not repeat many of the points that have already been made about national security, but we should be clear about the fact that Three is owned by the Hong Kong-based CK group. If the merger goes through, the new entity will have access to the data of 27 million UK nationals, as well as highly classified data under Vodafone’s existing contracts with, for instance, the national health service, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, and several police forces. I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and was lucky enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on it earlier in the year. In July, following my campaign to stop the merger, I wrote to the chief constable of my local force, Greater Manchester police, about its contract with Vodafone. I received a speedy response, and I am grateful to the chief constable, Mr Watson, and to the force.
The chief constable told me that under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, forces are not permitted to take non-commercial considerations into account when awarding contracts. The exclusions set out in subsection (5) are wide-ranging, and without intervention from the Secretary of State on specific issues, public bodies must adhere to the rules set out in the Act. I am quite concerned about the fact that my local police force has a contract with Vodafone, as have several other forces in England. The issue of the data transmitted through Vodafone from those police forces, as well as the NHS, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and other public bodies is a very serious matter. I could go on and on about CK group’s close personal links with the Chinese state and the Beijing-supported Hong Kong Government, but I will not go through them again.
The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), made this point earlier, but I would like to reiterate that no parliamentary scrutiny of the security approval process is under way. The Government are thought to be assessing the merger under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, but have refused to inform Parliament about the process or how they will make their decision. I am told that the Prime Minister and senior Ministers have held closed-door meetings with CK group executives in the last 12 months. I think right hon. Gentleman used the word “sinister”, and I agree with him: I too think that there is something quite sinister going on. The Government are not being upfront.
While I am quoting what has been said by earlier speakers, let me quote the hon. Member for West Dorset, who observed that the regulator was weak. I agree with him entirely, but I also think that the Government are weak. The Government should get a grip on the situation, because it is terrible news not only for people in each and every constituency but for the nation.
This merger would result in Chinese state interference in the UK, and it would give the CK group access to sensitive national Government, local government and public body contracts. The merger is not worth the risk. My understanding is that there is no evidence that this merger would increase investment. We have already heard about grey spots and areas with no 5G, 4G, 3G or even simple mobile coverage at all, so we need to ensure that Parliament gives proper scrutiny.
This merger is bad news for British customers and bad news for Britain, but I fear the Government are, yet again, asleep at the wheel on another crucial issue.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on securing this important debate, which I am glad the Backbench Business Committee has granted. The SNP has concerns on a few fronts. I will not repeat the stats, but I almost entirely agree with what he said. I thank Unite for its work and for its briefing.
There are various issues with the merger, particularly relating to consumers and security. We were pleased when, back in June or July, the Minister talked about regulatory hurdles that have to be cleared for this merger to take place, but those regulatory hurdles are not sufficient. It should not and cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise, so the comments we have heard about parliamentary scrutiny are very important.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has made me even more concerned about the possible lack of scrutiny. We are, after all, a parliamentary democracy, so we should be scrutinising the merger. Those Members who have the access and the ability to scrutinise the merger, with the assistance of confidential documents, should be doing this, because the merger clearly has a significant impact on national security.
The Government published their annual resilience report just a few weeks ago, and people need to be able to communicate with one another. Consumer data is important, and it is likely that a Chinese company will have access to 27 million people’s data, which is pretty terrifying, but it will also have access to mobile masts. The new mobile masts that are being put up as part of the shared rural network will be owned or are owned by a number of different companies, one of which would be this Three/Vodafone conglomerate. If it happens, the conglomerate would have roughly a third of each mast, which will cover a huge swathe of these islands. If there were any sort of attack on the masts, large chunks of the population would not be able to access 4G. The same issue applies to data security. What data is associated with this critical infrastructure, and what changes would be caused by this possible merger?
There are a couple of other reasons for concern. The risk of job losses is incredibly important; it is not of secondary importance. We are in a cost of living crisis, and having more jobs at threat when people are already stretched, already struggling, is pretty concerning as it puts them in an even worse position.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about his local police force’s Vodafone contract. The Procurement Act 2023 has security provisions that mean the Secretary of State is able to proscribe companies that have significant issues. However, given the amount of trouble we had getting the Government to do anything about Huawei, in relation to 5G, and Hikvision, in relation to CCTV cameras, I have no faith that the powers in the new Procurement Act could or would be used, and certainly not with any speed. We do not want to end up with these decisions made and the merger approved in some way, only for the Government to decide to backtrack on it. That would be even worse than if they decided to say no at an earlier point. I do not want us to end up realising that the risk has been created and that we need to try to sort the mess out. None of us wants to be in that position. I am not saying that the deal is terrible and should never go ahead. What I am saying, for all those reasons, is that there should be proper scrutiny, because there are significant concerns about China’s potential interference in critical national infrastructure.
On the consumer issues, the fact that prices are 20% higher in those European markets with only three major mobile phone companies instead of four is especially concerning, given the cost of living crisis, as the hon. Member for Stockport made clear. This deal should be properly scrutinised in order to best serve the public and our national security, and to protect our critical national infrastructure into the future.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. In particular, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for raising this issue and for his work as the new Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. I want to add my congratulations to him, however belatedly, on his appointment. He gave a comprehensive outline of the security implications of the proposed merger.
We had a comprehensive intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), my fellow Welshman. Whenever he speaks, we should all listen. He speaks with some authority, as both the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and a distinguished former Chair of the Defence Committee.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) raised some important points about rural broadband connectivity and his frustrations with companies and the regulator, which many of us share.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), mentioned some quite shocking statistics. Some 2.2 million households are struggling with mobile coverage, while in Greater Manchester—which he represents and speaks so passionately about—1.2 million people are facing digital exclusion, which is something we should all be concerned about.
There can be no doubt that the proposed merger between Three and Vodafone is not without controversy, as we have heard. We are often quite rightly chided when we throw barbs at each other in this House. Often, the House is at its very best when we are allowed to develop our arguments and when we listen in a spirit of respect for one another, as we have this afternoon, not just in this debate but in the previous debate. Even though I only agreed to step in for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) on Monday, my office has been absolutely inundated by those on both sides of the argument. There are those who believe that the merger will allow for more effective competition, while others, such as Unite—which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned, and which has put a huge effort into the campaign—believe that it will raise prices to the detriment of consumers and result in job cuts across the board. It is my understanding that the Competition and Markets Authority is investigating, and the call for views on the merger ended on 1 November.
I have listened to the debate closely, and it seems to me that the potential merger rests on two central questions. First, will consumers and the industry benefit from it? Secondly, who has access to the UK’s mobile networks? Let me turn to the first question. The merger will shrink the market, resulting in only three major competitors instead of the present four. The new company would be the largest in the market, boasting over 27 million customers. This comes against the backdrop of tariff increases this year. O2 has increased prices by 17.3%, while EE, Vodafone, Three and BT Mobile have increased prices by 14.4%. It is not just on contracts that customers are losing out; people who use their phones infrequently are getting less value for their money. Ofcom has also stated that the year-on-year real-terms increase in pay-monthly, SIM-only contracts is 13%.
A smartphone is no longer a luxury, but an essential piece of everyday life. It is not something that we as a society can allow people to be priced out of having. Children are taught on smartphones. Interviews take place over the phone. Emergency services are called on smartphones. If Three and Vodafone merge and continue their respective trends of increasing prices over inflation, that could price many out of the necessity of having a phone.
From an industry perspective, Unite the union estimates the merger will cause 1,000 to 1,600 job cuts. Vodafone is also in the process of cutting 11,000 jobs globally and has acknowledged that the proposed merger would see duplication with head office jobs. Both companies claim that there is more competition in the market than it first appears. Although there are only four mobile network providers, there are numerous mobile virtual network operators, such as Giffgaff, that can buy access to the infrastructure of the big four at incredibly competitive rates to offer competitive pricing. The mobile virtual network operators believe that a third big player in the market would be better for competition.
Furthermore, Three and Vodafone claim that the merger is necessary to invest in 5G, aiming for an £11 billion investment over a decade. While the investment target seems positive, it remains largely uncertain. Past mergers in other markets have not always resulted in increased investment. Notably, the European Union’s competition directorate blocked CK Hutchison’s attempt to acquire O2 from Telefónica in 2016. Competition involves more than just three players vying for business. The policy of local coverage often limits consumer choices. With fewer players in the market, pricing decisions might prioritise company profits over consumer value.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity of mobile phones for life. When interacting with Government services, for example going through the Jobcentre system, people have to be able to access the internet, although many of them are earning very little or nothing. Does he share my concern that the reduction in the number of companies in the market will hit hardest those people who are least able to afford it?
Chris Evans
I absolutely agree. At the start of my speech, I alluded to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said about 1.2 million people in Greater Manchester being digitally excluded. We do not know the figures nationwide, but that is a serious worry to me and something we have to bear in mind when we talk about such mergers. I will develop that argument further when I sum up. With fewer major players in the market, pricing decisions might prioritise company profits over consumer value. I hope the issues raised will be thoroughly examined by the CMA in its investigation.
Let me turn to the second key question, about access to the UK mobile networks. It is important that the Government safeguard national and personal data if the merger moves forward. Recently, Vodafone secured a contract to provide video conferencing and recording services at UK military courts. If the merger proceeds, Three would then hold them as well. That becomes significant when we learn that CK Hutchison Holdings, the owner of Three, is a conglomerate based in Hong Kong and registered in the Cayman Islands, established in 2015, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill.
At this early stage, it is only right to ask, in light of national security concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere, whether any assessment has been made of CK Hutchinson’s connections with the Chinese state. If so, does the merger pose any risk to individual security or that of the nation? Would the merger involve excluding Government contracts from the merger to ensure data security? These are crucial points that demand careful consideration and a robust plan to protect sensitive data and national interests. Is the economic security sub-committee of the National Security Council looking at the merger? As this decision is a matter of national security, will Parliament have an active role in this decision-making process?
Before the Minister responds, I draw his attention to a report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East, will correct me if I am wrong, but it says:
“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’ – it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.
Therefore, I hope the Minister will assure us that Parliament will be engaged and informed throughout the significant decision-making process. That is a hugely important point—I cannot emphasise that enough—given the potential national security risk if the largest mobile network in the UK is significantly controlled by a foreign company.
Ultimately, the decision on security issues rests with the Investment Security Unit in the Cabinet Office, with final approval resting with the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will consider the sensitive material involved in the merger including, but not limited to, the data from 27 million customers, along with contracts for the NHS, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence. Whether the merger goes ahead remains to be seen, but many questions have yet to be addressed. In winding up, will the Minister shed some light on the vital issues raised today in this vital debate?
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) both on his appointment as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee and on bringing this issue to the House today. There is no question but that the issues under debate today are very important. The outcome of the possible merger will have implications for thousands of consumers across the country, and the right hon. Gentleman raises perfectly valid questions.
To some extent, this debate is something of a reprise of the one initiated by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) in Westminster Hall last September. I am afraid that I am likely to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, because I am not able to add very much on the process to what I said back in September. He will be aware that we have a long-standing and robust system for looking at the competition aspects of mergers and acquisitions. As that is conducted independently of Government, it has always been the case that Ministers do not comment on the competition aspects, but rather leave it for the regulatory body—in this case the Competition and Markets Authority—to make recommendations. Ministers will then reach a decision once that process has been completed.
On the national security implications, we also have an extremely robust system in place, but it has always been the case that the Government do not talk about whether inquiries are taking place. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that, like all other national security matters, we do take telecoms security extremely seriously.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Things have moved on since the debate sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). On Tuesday, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Industry and Economic Security, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), told my Committee that she thought that the investment security regime was not fit to match the threats that we now see. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that there needs to be an overhaul of the investment security regime—he is calling for that evidence—and given that the Minister responsible has said that she does not think the regime is currently fit for the threat that we now face, it is essential that the Minister today is able to give us some reassurance that the questions arising from this merger will be addressed by the Investment Security Unit, not least because Parliament has very limited oversight of the decisions that Government will arrive at.
Sir John Whittingdale
The overall question of the efficacy of the investment security process is for the Cabinet Office. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to pursue his inquiry with the Minister responsible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, will also have views about the process that the Government have put in place. All I can say to both Select Committee Chairs is that, in relation to this specific merger, we cannot comment on whether it is currently undergoing scrutiny through that process, but we believe that the process that is available for the examination of mergers of this kind on national security grounds is robust. Beyond that, I cannot really go.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am not asking my right hon. Friend to say whether this particular proposed merger is being investigated. What I am asking him to say is whether the Government accept that there is a significant national security dimension to any proposal for a merger involving a major shareholding by a Chinese subservient company.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me; I am not sure that I can even go so far as to say that. It is on the record that the Government believe that foreign ownership of major critical infrastructure raises security concerns, which is precisely why the process was put in place and the Investment Security Unit was set up. We believe that we now have the ability to determine whether there are serious national security concerns, and if it is determined that there are, powers are available to the Government to take action to protect our national security. I think the answer is yes, but I do not want to be drawn into particular countries or companies. If he will forgive me, I will leave it at that.
Several Members raised wider questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is right that we need to look at the context in which the merger is possibly being considered. His test of whether it is good for his constituents is a perfectly valid one. As he observed, this is the third time we have debated connectivity in 24 hours. That is a measure of how important it is to people. It is the Government’s very firm view that the roll-out of 5G connectivity has huge potential for such things as public services, industry, transport and education. There will be enormous benefits to obtaining the widespread adoption of 5G—benefits that might amount to £159 billion by 2035.
That is why the Prime Minister’s commitment to the UK becoming a science and technology superpower will deliver benefits for everybody in this country. Connectivity, and the availability of mobile telephony, lies at the heart of that. We are already beginning to see benefits from 5G, but the Government are clear that we wish to move beyond the current basic, or non-stand-alone 5G, towards stand-alone 5G. Considerable investment is taking place: something like nearly £2 billion is being invested by the mobile operators in enhancing and improving their networks, and 5G is now available from at least one operator outside 85% of premises.
Navendu Mishra
I understand the Minister’s point about 85% 5G coverage, but what are the Government doing about the millions of people in poverty who cannot access 5G, 4G, 3G, or even simple broadband? Does he believe that the merger will mean lower prices for British consumers?
Sir John Whittingdale
I will come on to digital exclusion, which the hon. Member has rightly focused on as a major issue facing the country. Leaving aside whether the merger is a good idea, that is a challenge that we are determined to address.
We believe that very good progress is being made on coverage. As I think was expressed in both debates yesterday—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has raised this several times—the figures that we are given on the success of extending coverage do not always match the experience of the people living in those locations. Coverage predictions are made as a result of computer programmes simulating the way mobile signals travel, and signals can be blocked by obstructions. For that reason, sometimes the figures are not as good, which concerns us. That is why we said in the wireless infrastructure strategy that Ofcom needs to improve the accuracy of its reporting on mobile coverage and network performance. We will pursue that actively with Ofcom.
Chris Loder
I think my right hon. Friend is agreeing that some of Ofcom’s assumptions on coverage are a little questionable. Given that the universal service obligation is based on those assumptions, can he help us to push hard to get that resolved? It is negatively affecting so many people in rural areas, who are being told on a map that they are getting a reasonably good signal, but in reality are not.
Sir John Whittingdale
Ofcom teams go out and test the predictions that are made about the extent of coverage. They do not just accept what the computer tells them; they visit various locations. However, Ofcom needs to do more. Although I am not going to be in this post for more than another few days, I do have a meeting with Ofcom before I hand back the baton to my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). The issue was already on my list to raise with Ofcom, and I will draw the chief executive’s attention to the point my hon. Friend makes.
As I have said, we have set out our ambition to achieve stand-alone 5G across all populated areas by 2030. We believe that that will bring real benefits to the United Kingdom, but it requires billions of pounds of investment, which has to come from the commercial sector. Therefore, we have also set out a suite of measures to try to help operators to deliver that ambition. We also have a 10-point plan for rural connectivity, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) , who has worked very hard as the rural connectivity champion.
This debate has focused on security, and that is obviously a key factor that we need to take into account. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of having secure and resilient digital infrastructure. However, as I have already indicated, we think that thanks to recent legislation the UK now has one of the strongest telecoms security regimes in the world. The Government have used the powers of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 to set out clear timetables for the removal of Huawei from our 5G networks by the end of 2027. The Act has also established a new cyber-security framework to improve the security and resilience of public telecoms networks and services, which is now in force. Following the Government’s decision to remove Huawei from UK 5G networks, coupled with the need to mitigate the risks of long-term consolidation in the telecoms equipment market, our 5G supply chain diversification strategy sets out a plan to ensure that the UK has a healthy and competitive telecoms supply chain market.
That plan is backed by the £250 million open networks R&D fund, which will accelerate the adoption of open radio access networks technology. That will help to bring more suppliers into the market and to diversify, making it easier to reduce our dependency. However, I assure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that we are committed to protecting our networks, shielding our critical national infrastructure and understanding how new networks are designed, built and managed securely.
The possible merger deal between Vodafone and Three, as I have said, is subject to regulatory approvals to assess the risk to national security, competition and consumers in the way that all mergers of its kind would be. While we of course welcome investments where they support growth and jobs, the security of our critical infrastructure is also of prime importance. However, I am not able to go further than I have already done in answering the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about precisely the process by which that is measured.
These are other aspects to the merger. The hon. Member for Stockport, I think, raised the possibility of price increases, and hon. Members have commented on the consequences of a merger, also involving Vodafone, that took place in Australia. The only thing I would say is that every market is different, and therefore what happened in Australia cannot be used to draw any conclusions about what might happen here— although, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s latest report, in fact mobile service prices have stayed pretty much unchanged between 2020 and 2022.
Affordability, which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockport and others, is something that we take seriously. He is right that the possession of a mobile phone is becoming an essential of life that, during a cost of living crisis, people may find it difficult to afford, but I recognise the efforts that have been made by mobile operators, including Three and Vodafone, to support customers by bringing forward social tariffs for those on low incomes, as well as by donating millions of gigabits of data, and providing devices, to the National Databank.
There are currently 27 providers of social tariffs, and millions of households across the UK are eligible. I have expressed concern in the past about the low take-up of social tariffs, but I am pleased to say that it is now increasing, although there is still further work to do in bringing the possibility of a social tariff to the attention of people who may find a mobile phone difficult to afford. Mobile prices in the UK are among the lowest compared with countries such as Italy, Germany, Spain, France and the United States.
Kirsty Blackman
On the topic of social tariffs, I agree that low take-up is still a concern. When I visited my local jobcentre, I asked the staff there to ensure that they inform the people who come through the door about social tariffs. Will the Minister join me in encouraging MPs around the House to urge those working in customer-facing roles with people who are struggling financially to talk about mobile social tariffs?
Sir John Whittingdale
I am very happy to join the hon. Lady in calling for that. I recently met my ministerial colleague at the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss what more we can do to ensure that benefit claimants are aware of the possibility of going on to social tariffs.
I am afraid that I cannot say any more about the detail of the proposed merger, other than that we have well-established and robust processes in place for the consideration of both the impact on competition in the market and any possible national security concerns. I am confident that those processes will be followed, if necessary, in this case.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With the leave of the House, I call Liam Byrne to wind up.
Liam Byrne
This has been an extremely useful debate. Let me conclude it by offering my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on leading this campaign so vigorously. My thanks go to Unite the union for informing the House with such important research on the questions of national security.
Unfortunately, I fear that the debate has raised more questions than it has answered. It is a matter of concern that the Minister cannot tell us how the principles of defending our national security against bad investments apply to one specific case. This is a test case for whether our investment security regime is fit for the threat that we now face. We have heard two Select Committee Chairs tell the House that we, as parliamentarians, cannot assure the House that we can come to a judgment about whether the Government are making good or bad decisions. That is not a happy place for Parliament to be in. I am shocked that the Minister cannot tell us that a Chinese-subservient company is in any way blocked from acquiring access to the data on 27 million citizens in this country. That is a pretty poor state of affairs.
I hope that this may be the first of a few debates to come, but I pray that the Government quickly come to some new decisions about how this investment security regime operates in the future. We do not have a small yard and a high fence; right now, it seems that our security regime is a big garden and a low fence. I am afraid that in the world we live in, that is not good enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merger of Three and Vodafone.
Serious Violence: Battersea
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the Minister to his new post, although it is deeply worrying that his former role of Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work has been scrapped.
There is no doubt that cuts to police and public services are directly linked to the rise in serious violence in the country. I have called for this debate as meaningful actions are needed to tackle the epidemic of serious violence that we are seeing. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a national crisis—one that has been exacerbated by successive Conservative Governments.
For me, it is an absolute honour to represent Battersea, as it is a great place to live, work and visit. Sadly, however, over the past three months there have been three incidents of serious violence, two of which have resulted in fatalities. We have seen at first hand how serious violence can destroy lives, bring devastation to families and impact on the wider community’s sense of safety and security. There are no words to describe how difficult it is when I visit families who have lost loved ones to violent crime. It is heartbreaking to hear their feelings of helplessness and despair. Every incident should strengthen our determination to build a safer society for everyone.
The Tories like to talk tough on crime, but it is all words and very little action. The data tells a devastating story about their record on crime and justice, which is one of damaging decline and collapsing confidence. Nationally, serious violence is up by 60% since 2015, with knife crime, gun crime and robbery all increasing. Knife crime is up by 74%, with over 50,000 incidents last year alone and the highest number of fatalities in a year for 70 years. Most scandalously, it is young people who are most affected. Last year, the biggest increase in knife-related fatalities was among young boys aged 16 and 17. During 2021-22, a record number of children were victims of crime.
The criminal justice system is on its knees, with a backlog of 65,000 cases in the criminal courts. It is therefore no wonder that out of almost 28,000 knife possession offences recorded over the past year, only four in 10 led to any formal sanction. Why are the Government failing so badly to prosecute knife offences? These damning statistics are the result of more than a decade of austerity, cuts to public services and cutting around 20,000 police officers. This year, Baroness Casey’s review of the Met stated that it
“has been disfigured by austerity”
and that the number of police community support officers has been drastically reduced, leading to the collapse in neighbourhood policing.
After initially benefiting from a record of investment in policing under the last Labour Government, violent crime started to rise in London on Boris Johnson’s watch in 2014. He oversaw policies that led to police officer numbers falling to record lows and 9,000 police staff losing their jobs, including 72% of community support officers. Over 70 police stations closed, including Battersea police station in 2013. Obviously, the cuts have had a huge impact on policing. Emergency calls are not always responded to within the national target times, forcing the local Met to make changes to its emergency response.
While police numbers in London are now increasing, the Casey review highlighted the inexperience of new officers. By making cuts to policing, not only did we lose police officers; crucially, we lost experience. Although we now have a record number of police officers in London, with more than 9,000 officers recruited in the last three years alone, we need more. The Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, believes that 6,000 more officers are needed, yet the Government provided funding for only 4,500. Why will the Government not provide more officers in London?
When it comes to youth services, nearly £1 billion of funding has been cut. In London, spending fell by 59% in real terms compared with the period between 2011 and 2022.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is shameful that Sadiq Khan, as Labour Mayor of London and the police and crime commissioner for London, was the only PCC in the country who failed to use all the available Government funding, which cost London more than 1,000 police officers?
Marsha De Cordova
I would like to thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but obviously I do not. I am proud of what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has been doing to plug the gaps caused by the Government’s failure and their cuts to police services in London.
With little or no formal youth services provided by local authorities, it has been left to fantastic organisations in Battersea including Elays, FAST, Devas, Providence House, Caius House, Carney’s and many others to deliver for young people. We know that nearly £1 billion has been cut from youth services. It is vital that those services are provided with funding.
Some young people face unprecedented threats from the influence of county lines gangs, damaging social media content and issues caused by the pandemic. According to the think-tank Crest, more than 200,000 children are vulnerable to serious violence. Data also shows that a record number of young people are seeking mental health support from the NHS.
It must be a national mission to tackle serious violence and divert young people away from violence and crime. After 13 years, the Government have offered nothing substantial to address the epidemic of serious violence. Their serious violence strategy was last updated five years ago. What happened to the taskforce? It has been disbanded.
I am proud that Labour has committed to a series of reforms to increase the proportion of violent crimes being charged, to rebuild public confidence in policing and to restore the rule of law. Labour will invest in neighbourhood policing, putting 13,000 more police officers and police community support officers on our streets and introducing a new community policing guarantee to make Britain’s streets safer.
In local government, Labour has demonstrated the positive impact that can happen through sustained investment and action. The Mayor of London has plugged the funding hole created by the Tories with investments of £1 billion in policing. That will lead to an additional 1,300 officers on our streets and 500 police community support officers. In 2022, the number of murders in London was the lowest since 2014, and teenage murders reduced by 50%.
I firmly believe that tougher criminal justice measures alone will not solve the problem of serious violence in our communities. We also need to have a laser-like focus on prevention. For too long, the Government have written off young people, who have been pushed around by Government Departments, local authorities, mental health services and the police. There needs to be a holistic and joined-up approach. That model has already been pioneered by—yes—the Mayor of London. His violence reduction unit focuses on prevention and early intervention to help divert vulnerable young people in London away from violence and towards positive activities, opportunities and employment. More than 150,000 young people have been supported since the VRU was set up, which has resulted in a 25% reduction in homicides, a 15% fall in knife crime injuries among the under-25s, and a 26% reduction in robbery. The VRU shows how investment in prevention can lead to positive outcomes.
Alongside investment in youth services, we need to ensure that there is a community-based, localised, tailored support service to address the emotional and psychological needs of those directly and indirectly affected by serious violence. Following incidents in Battersea, Wandsworth Borough Council has commissioned a bereavement service to provide a 12-month pilot project, providing support to those bereaved due to violent crime, as well as incident and trauma counselling to those who have been victims of, or have witnessed, serious violence. It has also set up community-based support groups in areas where critical incidents have taken place.
While we are talking about serious violence, I want to touch briefly on violence against women and girls, following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard in south London and of many other women over the past few years. In Battersea, I have launched a safe spaces initiative, working with the police and local businesses to ensure women and girls can always feel safe on our local streets, wherever they are and whatever the time is.
In closing, I ask the Minister what action the Government are taking to tackle serious violence. If they are really committed to tackling this issue, why have they not updated their serious violence strategy for five years? Do they ever plan to do so? How are the Government plugging the gap in police funding and providing the investment needed in London to deliver more officers to help deliver a safer city for everyone, as the commissioner has called for? Where is the investment in prevention and youth services to stop the criminal exploitation of our children and young people? Will the Minister back Labour’s plan to introduce a new definition and specific offence of criminal child exploitation? Why will the Government not back our plans to put a mental health support worker into every school and youth workers into our accident and emergency hospitals to prevent people from becoming involved in gangs?
What investment are the Government making in community-based, localised, tailored support services to address the emotional and psychological needs of those directly and indirectly affected by serious violence? Increased investment and resources will be an investment in our young people, but also in their futures. It is time for the Government to act, but if they cannot deliver the change that our country so desperately needs, they really should get out of the way and let Labour get on with fixing the mess they have created. If they do not act now, then when? How many more lives must be destroyed by serious violence before this Government act?
The Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery (Tom Pursglove)
I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for securing this debate, and for the opportunity to respond to it.
May I first deal with the point that was raised at the outset of the debate? I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) all the very best as she assumes her responsibilities as the Minister for disabled people within Government. Having worked with her in the Department for Work and Pensions, I believe she will take on those important responsibilities with real vigour and do justice to them. It was an enormous privilege to serve as the Minister for disabled people over the course of the past 14 months. I am enormously grateful to all those I worked with—disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and the various charities—along with the many disabled people I met over the length and breadth of Britain, who made that an unforgettable time in ministerial office. I am proud of the work we did, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue that work over the coming weeks and months. I wish her well.
To return to the substance of today’s debate, the hon. Member for Battersea has spoken powerfully and passionately about the impact of serious violence in her constituency. I realise that this debate has had more of a local dimension, but I think it is worth reflecting on the national picture for a moment. Serious violence causes significant distress and harm whenever it occurs, and the Government are absolutely committed to tackling it. I think that all of us in this House can agree, whatever our political affiliations, that we want our communities to both feel safe and be safe wherever people live, and the senseless loss of life that she has described is a tragedy in every sense of the word. I say that as a former victims Minister who has met families who have lost loved ones in the most horrendous of circumstances. I do not think there is any politician on any side of British politics who is not moved by those stories and does not want to take action to prevent other families from experiencing the unimaginable loss and trauma that they have experienced when love ones are taken in such horrific circumstances.
That is why we have deployed a twin-track approach, combining tough enforcement with intervention to prevent people, especially young people, from being drawn into violent crime, and that work is delivering strong results. The latest crime statistics show that homicides fell by 10% compared with the last year, and were 15% lower than the year ending December 2019. Violence against the person offences fell by 1% compared with the previous year, and by 19% compared with March 2020. More than 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets since 2019 through a range of tactics, with almost half seized through stop and search. Again, I am sure all Members of this House would want to thank the many organisations across the country involved in facilitating the work of getting those dangerous weapons off our streets and helping to keep people safe. Through the work of violence reduction units and the Grip hotspot policing programme, we have prevented 136,000 violence without injury offences, as attested by an independent evaluation of the two programmes. Of course, we have recruited an additional 20,000 officers across England and Wales. We are making progress, but there is more to do. This threat is too serious and, in the worst cases, deadly for us to be anything other than relentless in our approach.
Marsha De Cordova
Does the Minister agree with me and with Baroness Casey who says that this is also about the experience that has been lost? Yes, there is now the recruitment of more officers, but that experience has gone since the Government chose to cut 20,000 officers over the past decade.
Tom Pursglove
I hear the point that the hon. Lady makes. I think that the commitment to deliver the 20,000 additional police officers was the right commitment to make. I well recall debates, which may have been before her time in the House, when I was on the Back Benches and those on the Labour Front Bench were arguing for us to cut funding for policing. I did not support that approach at the time, and I can only imagine where we would have been had we taken that advice. Instead, this Government have gone in the opposite direction, and we have increased policing numbers by 20,000, exactly as we committed, and I believe that it is making a difference on our streets. Of course, drawing on the experience of officers who have served in policing roles for a long period is invaluable to training the next generation of officers, and that is precisely an endeavour on which we are focusing.
We are determined to go further, which is why, earlier this year, we ran a public consultation detailing five proposals to tackle knife crime, and all of them will be taken forward in the most suitable way when parliamentary time allows. We will introduce via secondary legislation a ban on certain types of large knives that seem to appeal to those who want to use these items as weapons—for instance, zombie-style knives or machetes. In the Criminal Justice Bill, we have introduced provisions that will give the police more powers to seize dangerous weapons, created a new offence of possession of a bladed weapon with an intent to harm and increased sentences for those who import, manufacture or sell dangerous weapons to under-18s.
I turn to some of the specific areas touched on in the hon. Lady’s remarks. We have listened to officers on the frontline to understand the problems they face day in and day out, and we have worked in collaboration with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop a ban on the machetes and large knives that are becoming more prevalent in serious crime. The ban focuses on features that are commonly found in the types of knives being used in serious violence and serious crime.
Since we launched our consultation on measures to tackle knife crime there has been an interest in extending the ban to include swords, and I understand the reason why. However, during our conversations with the police, swords were not raised as a specific concern. The police tell us that the greatest risk at the moment is the criminal use of zombie-style knives and machetes, so we agreed to focus on specific features commonly found on the knives and machetes increasingly being used on our streets in incidents of serious violence. We will, however, keep that under review.
We are clear that it is illegal to sell knives to a person aged under 18, and that applies to face-to-face or online sales. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 stopped knives being sent to residential addresses after they are bought online, unless arrangements are in place to ensure that the items will not be delivered into the hands of someone who is under 18. We want strong deterrence to the sale of prohibited weapons, and of any knives to those under 18. That is why we are increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of selling knives to someone under the age of 18, whether online or face to face, from six months to two years. That change will reflect the severity of the offence itself, and will be brought forward as soon as possible.
One of the most powerful preventive measures we have is getting dangerous weapons off the streets entirely. Every knife seized is a potential life saved. More than 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets since 2019, as I mentioned, through a range of tactics, with almost half seized through stop and search. Proactive police work is also vital. Operation Sceptre involves intensive activity over several days, and has been running successfully for a number of years. The latest phase of the operation took place in November. It had a positive impact, with more than 12,000 knives seized, surrendered or recovered. Those bursts of activity are important, and can make a real difference, but we also clear that this needs to be a priority all year round.
The Government will always act in the interests of the law-abiding majority, including by strengthening the law where necessary. We want to have strong deterrents for knife possession, with the maximum sentence for possessing a knife in public being four years’ imprisonment. In recognition of the seriousness of offences related to knives, the law provides for minimum custodial sentences for repeat knife possession and offences that involve threatening with a weapon. The court is able to impose a minimum six-month custodial sentence for adults, or a four-month detention and training order sentence for 16 and 17-year-olds. We continue to strengthen the law in that area to ensure that we are getting offensive weapons off the streets. That is why we are increasing the maximum penalty for sales of prohibited offensive weapons, and also for sales of knives to under-18s. We are also introducing a new offence for the possession of a knife with the intention to cause harm or fear of violence. The new offence will provide police with the power to charge someone who is found to be in possession of a knife or offensive weapon with a more serious offence than possession in public.
There is also a role for technology in this, which can help us to improve our response. We should be open to such possibilities. The Home Office is actively researching and developing technologies that are capable of detecting knives carried on the person that could be concealed, distinguishing them from other benign objects such as door keys. This is still in the developmental phase, but the Home Office and partners are continuing to engage the market to identify new and promising technologies to reduce knife crime.
The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 introduced knife crime preventions orders, which are court orders designed to prevent people aged 12 and over from carrying knives and becoming involved in serious violence. The aim is to stop a small but high-risk cohort of individuals from causing immediate harm to others, and to support earlier interventions to turn young people away from a life of crime. Knife crime prevention orders were piloted by the Metropolitan Police Service from July 2022 to March 2023, and it is currently evaluating that pilot and its effectiveness. That will then inform any decision on whether to roll out the orders to all police forces in England and Wales.
As I said in my opening remarks, we are supporting the police every step of the way in these endeavours to tackle violent crime. We have given them more powers and resources to go after criminals, and to take knives and other dangerous weapons off our streets. We promised to put more police officers on our streets, and we have delivered on that commitment by recruiting more than 20,000 police officers. As a result of the Government’s police uplift programme, the Metropolitan Police Service now has more than 35,000 officers. That is the highest number on record and higher than the pre-PUP peak of 33,820 in March 2010. I am sure that the House would join me in saying how fantastic it is that so many people are taking up a career in policing, and I say that as the son of two former police officers. Every new recruit has a role to play in our fight to tackle crime and keep the public safe. I place on record how grateful I am for all that they do.
I have mentioned the funding for Grip and violence reduction units, which are the Government’s preventive programmes to tackle serious violence, including knife crime. Violence reduction units identify people, particularly young people, in danger of following the wrong path. They bring together partners from health, probation, policing, housing and beyond in a partnership approach to invest in the best evidence-based interventions to prevent and deter young people from involvement in serious violence, exactly as I saw for myself last summer in Leicester. Violence reduction units are critical, as is the Grip programme, which is a hotspot policing initiative funded by this Government. In essence, it involves a data-driven approach to identify the precise location to street or neighbourhood level most at risk of serious violence so that we can support them with additional visible police patrols and problem-solving activity to stop crime from happening in the first place.
It was welcome that the hon. Lady touched on the work of the London violence reduction unit, which is in receipt of Government funding. We have funded 20 violence reduction units across the country since 2019, investing £160 million, and they are making a considerable difference. Members across the House can welcome that, and I am pleased that the VRU is making a difference on the ground in Battersea, too. We are ensuring that we are targeting crime at root and at source and investing in prevention and early intervention. We are investing £200 million over 10 years in the Youth Endowment Fund, as well as co-funding the delivery and evaluation of high-impact and innovative interventions.
Marsha De Cordova
The Minister has rightly spoken about the VRUs and the brilliant work taking place in London. At the heart of all this are our children and young people. We know, as I alluded to in my speech, that many could be exploited by some of these criminal gangs. As I have asked him—I wonder whether he will come on to it—will he back Labour’s plan that would introduce a specific offence around child exploitation?
Tom Pursglove
Bearing in mind that I am covering this debate for the Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), I will, if I may, gladly ask him to pick up on any points that remain outstanding from my remarks. I genuinely believe that the Youth Endowment Fund is helping to transform our understanding of what works to prevent children and people from being involved in violence and from being exploited. It does so by funding grant and evaluation programmes and working with many organisations to ensure that they are investing in programmes that have a real impact.
I will finish by offering my thanks again to the hon. Lady for securing this debate, to colleagues in attendance and to those across Parliament who I know take a real interest in these matters. These are some of the most serious issues that we deal with as constituency MPs. We all want to see the most robust action taken in responding to serious violence wherever we find it. The strength of feeling and desire for sustained effective action is clear. Each and every one of us knows how vital it is for our communities and our constituents. I can assure the House and the public that this Government get it. We know the stakes, and that is why we are taking action across multiple fronts to tackle knife crime and keep people—especially young people—safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Justice Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 14th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2023 - (12 Dec 2023)
The Chair
Good morning, everybody. We will start with the Opposition for the first five minutes, then go to the Ministers and then open questions up to others. Anybody not on the Front Bench who wants to ask a question, please signify—send up a rocket.
Examination of Witness
Nick Smart gave evidence.
The Chair
We start with Nick Smart, acting president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales. Did you put in written evidence?
Nick Smart: No, I just have some notes to refer to.
The Chair
Okay. Would you like to introduce yourself?
Nick Smart: Good morning, everybody. I am Nick Smart, acting president of the Police Superintendents’ Association. We represent superintendents and chief superintendents in England and Wales; we have approximately 1,500 members nationally.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
The nuisance rough sleeping provisions in clauses 51 to 62 are likely to have an impact on police officers and the work that they have to do. Does the association have a view on that, and on its resourcing implications?
Nick Smart: Yes. With the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, the new measures are welcome. The powers give officers the ability to move people on in certain circumstances, be it rough sleeping or begging. As Mr Stephens from the National Police Chiefs’ Council said, this is a wider societal issue, not necessarily just a police matter. We would encourage the use of these powers in line with our community safety partners to address the issues. We would look at this as a positive step for police officers.
Alex Norris
Q
Nick Smart: A lot of the individuals who end up in this situation are vulnerable; I am sure you have heard evidence of that. Will it address the root causes of rough sleeping and begging? That remains to be seen. We note that with the one-month imprisonment, there is a potential risk of people being arrested subject to notices and then yo-yoing in and out of the criminal justice system, prisons and so on. If they are in prison for a short time, they are not able to access all the help that they may need. Where sleeping and begging also has that harassment or nuisance element, however, that is an appropriate power.
Alex Norris
Q
Nick Smart: On the police appeals tribunals, it makes perfect sense to us as an association that where officers need to be dismissed, or it is believed that officers should be dismissed, chief constables have the right to appeal to the tribunal rather than going through the rather litigious and expensive route of judicial review.
We are supportive of the duty of candour and code of ethics. Nobody in policing wants bad cops within the organisation. We are overtly cognisant of the trust and confidence issues in policing and of the legitimacy that we all—the public—seek and desire. We believe that the College of Policing needs to come up with some clear and unambiguous guidance for all police officers. If you were to ask a PC, at 2 am, what “duty of candour” means, I think they might struggle to answer, but if the College of Policing is clear with that guidance and rolls it out in an unambiguous manner that everybody can understand, which I believe it will, we do not have an issue. We support that 100%.
Alex Norris
Q
Nick Smart: The purpose of vetting is to make sure that the right people get into the organisation. There is certainly a reputational risk in having the wrong officers in the organisation; we have seen the damage it can do to trust and confidence in the police service. I believe that the measures that the College of Policing will instigate for licence and vetting units are a positive step to make sure that they adhere to a certain standard.
Having His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary review vetting units as part of its inspections is a sensible way of safeguarding and making sure that they are working effectively. As with any issue, if you want to enhance the vetting it will mean more staff, which will cost more. The current budgets are set, so if you put more people and resources into more robust vetting, which is a sensible idea, something at the other end will have to give, because there is no endless money pit for the police budget.
Yes, we welcome it and we believe that it is the right thing to do. As an observation, an officer is vetted at the time of joining, but you could have repeat vetting at some point during their service, to make sure that they still have the appropriate vetting. Also, when you get promoted to superintendent level, for example, you go to management-level vetting, which is slightly more intrusive. If you are a counter-terrorism officer, you may get some even more enhanced and developed vetting that takes more time and resources. We would welcome more robust vetting, and I think most chief constables would welcome it, but it is a question of resourcing and staffing to make sure that the process is fit for purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Q
Nick Smart: In terms of the appeals process?
Laura Farris
In terms of the two things. Do you think that that is the range of tools that they need in order to better manage?
Nick Smart: In terms of the appeals process, having a JR is really expensive and takes time. If the officer is to be dismissed, a JR prolongs the period unnecessarily. An appeals tribunal should be swifter, so if the officer is dismissed the process is more satisfactory for everybody concerned. We believe that this is an appropriate tool for chief constables.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: It plugs a gap. Previously, officers who were lawfully on premises could not seize knives that were essentially held there—we all have knives in our house—but there are examples of domestic situations in which a knife could be used to commit a heinous offence. This provision allows us to seize that knife if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal act will be committed. We would support this.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: Basically, yes. There are examples of officers who have attended various incidents, perhaps with people with mental health problems, in domestic situations where knives had been lawfully bought but could be used in a criminal act, and the officers have not been able to seize them properly. Again, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal act may be committed with a bladed article—a weapon—it is entirely appropriate that we have the power to seize it and stop that from happening.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: I think it is a reasonable belief rather than a suspicion. Giving that power to our officers is welcome. It comes with the caveat that there is a legitimacy angle. Officers not having to obtain warrants to enter premises presents a big trust and confidence issue for the public, and rightly so. That is where the quality of policing comes in with respect to officers’ guidance, understanding and application, and with respect to His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary making sure that those powers are used appropriately and that there is accountability.
It plugs a gap. For example, we all have an iPhone, and we all have Find My Friends on it. If somebody has lost a bit of tech and the app can pinpoint an address, that, along with other reasonable lines of inquiry, gives the officer the reasonable belief to enter the premises and recover the property. That seems appropriate.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: Yes, I do. On the scale of reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief, you have to have virtually no doubt that the item is in that property before you enter it. Rather than reasonable suspicion, where you can just have a hunch, there have to be active lines of inquiry based on intelligence to justify a reasonable belief, but if it is there, it is entirely appropriate for an officer to enter and recover a member of the public’s stolen property.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: I think it gives us the flexibility and dynamism we need to address issues that occur, fight crime, deter crime and reassure the public. In my force, West Yorkshire, public spaces protection orders have been used against nuisance vehicles where individuals have been wolf-whistling at females, so they link to the violence against women and girls agenda and they have been used quite successfully. Our power to create PSPOs is entirely appropriate in the circumstances and is very welcome.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: Again, it relates to the accountability for everybody’s actions. It is not just older people who commit antisocial behaviour; it is often youth-related and it is linked to families. We welcome the provision allowing social housing providers to remove nuisance tenants, but we understand that they have an obligation to rehouse them, so it is not just about moving them from one place to another and the same behaviour happening. There has to be community safety partnership work to ensure that there is the health, education and social care provision to change their behaviour. Otherwise, you are just displacing the problem from one area to another.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q
Nick Smart: On the powers, possession with intent is a really useful operational tool for officers. It is similar to firearms legislation, in which there is an offence of possession of firearms with intent to endanger life. Having an offence for knives with a similar intent is welcome. We have seen gangs taunting each other with knives on social media, on podcasts and things like that. Possession with intent is a welcome operational tool, used in line with intelligence and obviously monitored with the usual safeguards. Operationally it is very welcome, and if it saves lives we are all for it.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Nick Smart: I cannot comment on that, because I am not aware of it. I can get you a written response if you would like me to come back to you.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Nick Smart: The powers on sale and manufacture are welcome in addressing those who use social media such as Snapchat to sell knives to groups. The prohibited knives in a public place distinction is welcome. We have tried for some time to do that. For example, you have to prove three different elements to prove that something is a zombie knife, but now there is a provision in the Bill. I guess an aggravating factor that might be linked to the sentencing guidance is having that prohibited knife in your possession. Again, taking that into account in a court of law is welcome. The set of provisions around knife crime is very welcome.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
“Police-perpetrated domestic abuse related issues—and that means three key things to me. One is being more proactive about removing warrant cards if someone is under investigation for crimes relating to violence against women and girls or domestic abuse. The second is the specified offences that I believe should be listed that would constitute gross misconduct; again, I think they should be defined as domestic abuse, sexual harassment, assault and violence, so-called honour-based abuse, and stalking. The third is stronger provisions in relation to police vetting—requiring that every five years, and ensuring that if there is a change in force, police vetting takes place. Tightening up those provisions is not currently in the Bill and I think it should be.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2023; c. 24, Q55.]
Do you agree?
Nick Smart: If we take the last point first, vetting more frequently during an officer’s service is welcome, and if they change force, entirely appropriate. We agree with that.
On gross misconduct, if you permit me, I have some data to share. We are talking about not just domestic-based issues, but superintendents served gross misconduct papers in the past few years for various things. In 2018-19, 19 of our members were served and two sacked; in 2019-20, 19 were served and four sacked; in ’20-21, nine gross misconducts, two sacked; and in’21-22, 12 with one sacked.
What that shows about gross misconduct is that roughly 80% of officers who are served with gross misconduct papers have NFA—no further action—taken against them. We suggest looking at cases on a case-by-case basis and, if it involves serious wrongdoing, that should be a matter for the appropriate authority to look at a severity assessment and to make that assessment straightaway. We believe we find that a quarter of our professional standards departments go to gross misconduct almost immediately, and if 80% to 85% of officers have no further action taken when they are given those gross misconduct papers, that indicates to us that the severity assessment is wrong in the first place. If there is wrongdoing and it is clear, however, then gross misconduct papers should be served.
We would say, again, that at the merest hint of a suggestion, police professional standards departments serve a gross misconduct, but we think that there should be more of an investigation to establish the facts before gross misconduct papers are served. But where there is a clear chain of evidence that relates to an individual and wrongdoing, it is entirely appropriate, and we support gross misconduct papers being served.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Nick Smart: I think that the way in which we as a service approach gross misconduct could do with a refresh. We have discussed that as a Police Superintendents’ Association, because our colleagues are usually the heads of professional standards departments making those assessments. Culturally, I think we go in low, so it is easy to give somebody a gross misconduct paper, whereas some work with the College of Policing to refresh how we approach that might be welcome, so that gross misconduct is served appropriately to the right individuals and we do not clutter professional standards departments with investigations that are going nowhere ultimately.
The Chair
Q
Nick Smart: If I may, there is one item—the powers of entry—which I think you alluded to. An issue that we looked at was that of immediacy. Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows the police to search after arrest, and that requires an inspector’s authority. In certain circumstances, if the inspector is not available or there is a policing need, the constable can go in and get retrospective authority.
In the circumstances outlined in the Bill’s powers of entry, nothing in there regards that immediacy. If the officer at the time needs to go in to recover the property but cannot get hold of the inspector—for example, if the inspector is in custody dealing with a review, or they are dealing with a complaint or a critical incident, and because they need to review what is going on and then give that authority—it would be helpful to have that provision in so that the officer can seek that respective authority from the inspector as per section 18 of PACE. The precedent is there, but a provision would tackle immediacy—
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: Absolutely. I think in 99% of the cases the inspector’s authority would be granted.
Laura Farris
Q
Nick Smart: There is always the potential when you go through somebody’s door without a warrant for that. I think Andy Cooke from HMIC said that mistakes will be made. However, if there is a genuine belief that you are at a property, you have somebody with a mobile phone, they have seen you and you think that they will run out the back door of the property, or try to hide or destroy that property, you must wait for the inspector to give you the authority. That gives the individual time to act and potentially lose, damage, alter or destroy that property, so that when you go through the door you do not find it for whatever reason. It is an observation; we are not saying that it should be in there, but it is a consideration. As I say, the precedent is there in section 18 of PACE, which I think certainly we, and HMIC, would say has not been abused over time.
The Chair
Thank you for your evidence. If there is anything you would like to add or that you feel you have missed when you go back on the tube, you can always write to the Clerk.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Sue Woolley, Emily Spurrell and David Lloyd gave evidence.
The Chair
We welcome the three witnesses: Councillor Sue Woolley, Conservative lead at the Local Government Association and Safer and Stronger Communities; Emily Spurrell, a Police and Crime Commissioner and justice portfolio lead; and David Lloyd, a PCC and criminal justice portfolio lead. Can you start by introducing yourselves, please? We will start with David.
David Lloyd: Thanks very much, Sir Robert. Thank you for the courtesy of extending invitations to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to attend. You realise that PCCs have a strategic role in setting plans and budgets and holding their chief constable to account. We are not operational, and therefore any remarks we will make will be more about strategy—I suppose budgets, specifically—but we are also proudly victims champions. I suppose that is what we have brought to the criminal justice system—there is bias in favour of criminals. I am David Lloyd, and I am the PCC in Hertfordshire.
Emily Spurrell: I am the PCC in Merseyside. To echo what David said, scrutiny and partnership working in particular are some of the areas that we are keen to look at.
Councillor Sue Woolley: I am Councillor Sue Woolley. Today I am representing the Local Government Association. As you have already said, I am a member of the Safer and Stronger Communities Board. As a representative of local government, you will know, and I would suggest, that we are probably the bit of the jam that brings everything together, so that we have the opportunity to work with all those wider partners, including the PCCs, local government and the police force.
Alex Norris
Q
Councillor Sue Woolley: The community safety partnerships are absolutely important for partnership working at that local level—I must impress that on you—and provide the opportunity to bring together those other agencies that work particularly in the wider scheme of things. For example, under local government you will have public health, which sits with upper tier authorities; of course, they are responsible for things such as drug and alcohol services. While you may have the sharp end, if you like—the police force and the PCC—working with those who have broken the law, it is then the turn of local government and its wider partners to pick it up and put some restoration into the process.
Emily Spurrell: As I said, I think partnership is a key part of the work we are trying to do. As police and crime commissioners, it is certainly very much in our job description that we bring partners together, and community safety partnerships are a good tool to do that.
They have probably had some challenges since they were first introduced many years ago, particularly around capacity in some areas—partly because of funding and because they do not sit on a statutory footing. In Merseyside, I fund the five CSPs that sit within the five local authorities. I give them funding to try to help them drive some of the really local issues that we see. It is also important that, as PCCs, we try to bring them together at the Merseyside force footprint level, so we can try to join that up. We want to try to get the balance of giving the local CSPs the powers and funding to do some really local issues while ensuring that we do not lose sight of how we get consistency and a joined-up approach at the force level.
In terms of some of the issues that the Criminal Justice Bill talks about—antisocial behaviour, nuisance begging and those kinds of issues—we absolutely need to use the powers of partners. We cannot rely on the police to do that job, for many reasons. The CSPs are the place where we can try to bring those people together and say, “It does not meet a police threshold, but we have other powers that we can use.” That is the value of the CSPs all coming together to do that work.
David Lloyd: Emily is quite right: they are very good idea. I think they are variable. In Hertfordshire I have 10, based on the borough council footprint. Some very much want to work alongside policing. They are a very good idea, because community safety is clearly not just a policing issue; that is the most extreme end of it, but most of it is further upstream. But they are variable, and a lot of it is to do with the funding that they choose to put in or not. It is very easy to spend other people’s money on something; it is far more difficult to spend one’s own money on something. Frankly, that can be an issue, so we need to think about that funding and how it happens.
We also have to think about how they can influence the police and crime plan and how we can influence what they are doing. Even though they are fairly mature organisations, things still do not always join up as much as you might expect, especially if there are different political beliefs and different political leaderships.
Alex Norris
Q
Councillor Sue Woolley: I couldn’t possibly comment!
David Lloyd: When they were originally brought in under the Labour Government in the ’90s, I think they were missing teeth, if you like. Perhaps there was more accessible funding in those days, but to an extent I think that they do not have the teeth. Clearly, there is now a democratically elected corporation sole: a person who has that very direct role around community—a direct mandate from the public. So being able to sweep up into what the local council is doing would be very helpful, because we need some way of ensuring that, where common persuasion does not work enough, there are some teeth within it.
Alex Norris
Q
Emily Spurrell: From my point of view, if the system was working as it should—again, I am reflecting on my own experience in Merseyside—you should all be talking about the same things anyway. When I look at my CSPs in Merseyside, if they are not all talking about serious organised crime, something has gone wrong. They are all talking about it, because it is an issue in all their areas. There will be some really specific issues that I think CSPs need to be able to look at but, generally speaking, if they are not talking about those issues, something else has gone wrong further upstream. It could be helpful to put this in because then, as David says, there is a reminder that you need that connection. The reality is that if they are not really talking about those things, there are bigger issues at play, in terms of why those same priorities are not being picked up.
Councillor Sue Woolley: I think that if at all possible, when you have partners around a table and they are equal partners, that is a conducive way to good practice and working. I am quite sure that works really well in some places. In my own area, that works particularly well. All partners are equal around the table; everybody works together. I am quite sure that in other areas, that bond may not be as strong. Rather than just legislating for something, I would suggest that, if at all possible, there could be something around a duty to work together. You will know the language better than me.
Emily Spurrell: That actually already exists for PCCs. It is within our duty to work in partnership as well.
Laura Farris
Q
David Lloyd: We of course hold the chief constable to account in a variety of ways and in different places. Realising that there is a duty of candour is another part of the armoury, because it is something that we can push back. I know that this was very much part of the post-Hillsborough legacy. Clearly, that whole lack of candour was one of the things that went wrong. We are good at holding the chiefs to account, and it should happen locally. With this extra duty there, it is something that we will need to be reminded about—it is helpful for us to be reminded that there is a duty of candour—but we can then ask those questions as well.
Laura Farris
Q
David Lloyd: Clearly, there are people who are homeless, who are also almost aggressively begging; there are people on the streets who are aggressively begging, and are almost aggressively homeless, if that does not sound like a strange thing to say. However, I think we do need a great deal of care. I suspect that the vast majority of people who are homeless on the streets would not be seen as committing a criminal offence by any court, police officer or PCC. They require care and a way of ensuring that any drug and alcohol addiction or mental health issues are supported. It is a difficult area.
Laura Farris
Q
David Lloyd: I think there is a distinction. We have heard evidence, and I am sure that you have heard evidence, of people sleeping in doorways who cannot be moved on by the local authority and there is nothing that can be done.
I suppose my real concern within this is that, especially as budgets get tighter and tighter, the duty around homelessness may change from being a duty on the local authority to a police issue. I do not think that that would be overly helpful if it were not structured in the right way—that it is seen that the principal duty is on the local authority rather than it being a policing issue. I think that there is a real danger of getting to the point that the police need to pick this up. Clearly, policing is not going to be able to deal with anything other than the very sharp and focused bit about this moment; there is far more to it than just this moment.
Laura Farris
Councillor Woolley, given your role, do you have a view on that?
Councillor Sue Woolley: I think we have to be very careful that we do not unnecessarily criminalise rough sleeping. As you are probably aware, through their various services, councils work very closely with those people that might be rough sleeping. There is a combination of rough sleeping and begging.
If we go down the road of criminalising something, then we run the risk of not being able to support those people and the one thing that we do want to do as a society is to support those people. I would just play back that, during covid, we got those people off the street. When we got them off the street, we were able to put services in for them and work with them. I would love to see that happen again. However, we do have a cohort of those who engage in nuisance begging, and we also have a situation of organised gangs sitting behind those who are begging. It is not a black and white answer at all.
Laura Farris
Q
Emily Spurrell: I think it would be useful. We obviously already have the community trigger process in place at the minute, where if someone is dissatisfied with the response from the local authority, they can ask for a review from the PCC’s office to check whether the process was followed sufficiently. I think there are challenges around that in terms of public awareness; I do not think we are seeing huge numbers of that in some areas because much of the public are not aware that that is an option.
It comes back to what we were talking about at the beginning: it is not about the PCC trying to instruct or direct; it is about being able to have the powers to question, challenge and say, “As a partnership, are we doing enough to tackle this issue?” There will be times when actually it will be the police that need to step up in that response, but there will also be times when the local authority have not made a good enough response to that particular incident. It is about having someone who has the power to take another look and say, “Actually, I think we have missed something here. How do we put that right?” and then giving reassurance and saying, “Actually, the local authority or the partnership have done everything possible and there is no more that we can do.” It is a helpful check, and it probably is just an expansion of what we already do at the minute around the community trigger.
Laura Farris
Q
Emily Spurrell: It is a step in the right direction, yes. It is useful just to ensure that those victims of ASB are not dismissed as low level and are considered. We do see incidents where, if victims of ASB are not taken seriously at that first stage, things can escalate and become quite serious, so it is important that victims feel as though they have been heard and that everyone is working towards trying to find a solution, which is not always the case.
The Chair
Q
David Lloyd: I am broadly supportive of the Bill. I am particularly interested in suspending short custodial sentences. I think that makes a great deal of sense and I would highly recommend that. I have covered the piece on nuisance begging and rough sleeping that I was interested in. As a real victims champion and someone who has pushed hard on violence against women and girls since 2012, the aggravating factor for murder at the end of a relationship and MAPPA for controlling and coercive behaviour is something that, again, I highly commend and think that we need to do.
The other thing I picked up from the earlier session was the question around vetting. We need to just consider whether we need to, in many ways, vet to values. We are clearly doing it more and more in our recruitment process, but it strikes me that there are very few officers who have met the criminal threshold and therefore are likely to have on their file a criminal conviction. That does not mean to say that we do not have misogynists or racists or homophobes within the organisations. We have much to do around that. We need to just think about what else we might be able to do to vet to values, so that we make sure we have police forces that are fit for the public. I think that the very vast majority are fit, by the way—I am not suggesting for one moment that they are anything other than that—but we might want to look at that quite closely.
Emily Spurrell: I echo some of what David said there about some of those challenges. To go back to the begging point, which is a wider issue and I know that it is linked with what is going through to the Sentencing Bill, there is a real emphasis and a real push to try to reduce the number of short-term sentences and we want more people in the community. I worry whether some of the provisions for the Criminal Justice Bill, such as the aggressive begging provisions, will actually see an increase in that, which is not what we want, and the two will work counter to each other. I would just say to be mindful around that.
As for some of the bits that David alluded to around vetting and some of the work that is under way to try and increase trust and confidence, there is probably scope to go further. I know there is work being done. The Mayor of London has been quite keen to push some of that and I think he has been working with Harriet Harman on an additional level of scrutiny around the ability to dismiss officers who have been convicted of serious criminal offences and more flexibility around pension forfeiture, for example. There is more scope to do more around that building of trust and confidence within policing in terms of that scrutiny.
Around the vetting, there is work under way. I am aware that there is a national project to try and increase vetting. Echoing what the superintendent said in the previous session, trying to make sure that there is that regular touch base, particularly when officers are crossing forces, is really helpful.
The only other thing I will say around that is that the big challenge we face is around how long these things are taking. It would not matter so much that people were going through a process if it was resolved quickly. Instead, we see some of the examples the superintendent was referring to, where officers accused of gross misconduct sit for years waiting for an outcome and then it gets an NFA or gets downgraded. There is a real challenge here around capacity in the system, both internally in professional standards and with the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and how we can speed up those processes so that we have a robust system that is not taking up so much time and taking officers off the streets.
My only other comment would be in relation to the introduction of the express power for the courts to direct prisoners to attend their sentencing hearings. You will obviously be aware that this came up quite strongly after Olivia was murdered on Merseyside and her family have been very clear about the insult to her mum and her family when the offender did not turn up to hear the victim’s personal statement. I really welcome this, notwithstanding some of the logistical challenges, because it is a really welcome change: offenders should be expected to listen to the impact of their crimes on their victims and their families.
Councillor Sue Woolley: Very briefly, and following on from the point that Emily just made, I would just make a point about the capacity issue, particularly around child sexual abuse reporting. We must be very careful that justice needs to be seen to be swift. What has been shown with various reports on child sexual abuse is that reports have been made but it is taking too long for those individuals—those young people—to be supported when they have then been taken through a process.
Therefore, although it is laudable and the right thing to do to ensure that reports are made in a timely fashion, let us make sure that we have the capacity at the other end to be able to support those young people.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Emily Spurrell: From my perspective, the way that we tackle knife crime is actually not through the criminal system; I think it has got to be through that early intervention space. I welcome the provisions in the Bill. Again, the comments made by the superintendent about better provision for identifying zombie knives, getting weapons off the streets and strengthening things like the sale of knives, which has been done in recent months, is all very welcome. But for me, it comes down to that early intervention space: the investment in youth services. The work we are doing on violence reduction units, for example, which is being led by PCCs, is very positive. I will say that it needs to come with long-term, stable funding.
The Minister will have heard me say that many times before, but it is something that we really need, because that long-term, public health approach is how you really tackle knife crime, although I think the provisions in the Bill are very welcome, just in terms of giving police that extra ability to seize those weapons and identify those individuals who are likely to pose a threat.
David Lloyd: I agree entirely. Clearly, I am not operational, so to that extent I do not know. But clearly there is a fear of knife crime among the public. We do need to do something about that. And zombie knives and the work of one of the members of this Bill Committee on them is noted.
However, it strikes me—this relates to Emily’s point—that there was a case some years back, where 80% of the bladed injuries in a hospital in Buckinghamshire were not known of by the police, because there is not the sharing of data between health and the criminal justice system. In many ways, if we want to get up the line, we need to be able to find where some of these problems are happening, and better sharing of data might do a lot more than even some of the provisions in this Bill.
Councillor Sue Woolley: I suppose that what I would say to you is that I would probably like to take one step back and go a little bit more upstream, and probably not see knives getting on to the street in the first place. That may mean taking out the ability to order one through the post, as it were, etc. I would feel more comfortable if they were not there in the first instance.
From the council’s point of view, we would therefore plead that trading standards is the obvious arena for making sure that that happens. Anything that supports trading standards officers to be able to take those weapons off market stalls, etc. would be very helpful.
Emily Spurrell: I will just add one other point on the police powers. Again, we always have a balance to strike. We welcome giving the police the tools to do the job better, but this is where our role as scrutineers is really important, so that we make sure that where they are using those additional powers, they are being used in a fair and proportionate way. That is very much something that we would look to focus on as well.
Stephen Metcalfe
Q
Councillor Sue Woolley: Sorry, I am not saying trading standards staff do not have the power. I think, again, it is a capacity issue. We could do with 10 times the number, and that would go a long way towards stopping these knives getting on to the streets in the first place.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Q
Councillor Sue Woolley: It helps, but more could be done. On the duties, it would be good if we could have language that said, “We expect, as members of the public, that you will work together.” It would be good if the language, rather than telling various agencies, “You have to do this and you have to do that,” was, “Our expectation is that as organisations, in the first instance, you will work as a team, as a community safety partnership.” If you work as a partnership, everybody has an equal responsibility, and that is the bit that I would really like to see emphasised.
David Lloyd: To underline the concern that I had earlier, there is a real danger, if it is seen that the police have the power to do something about homelessness or rough sleeping, that it might be left for only the police to pick that up. In Hertfordshire, we really believe in, and the whole of our policing is based on, prevention first. In many ways, it would be best if we did not have to use the police at all and everything was done further up the line. I think that if we end up at a point where councils can say, “Well, this is not entirely our responsibility; the police have a responsibility for it,” there is a danger, in the same way as with mental health.
We had the issue with mental health authorities not picking up the issue of people who were mentally unwell. It ended up with the police doing far too much and mental health nurses not enough. I fear that, especially in a time of tight budgets, we may well find that this is pushed more towards the police, so we just need to recognise that. It might be that by working even better through community safety partnerships we get over it. But it is better to go in with our eyes open to it.
The Chair
Thank you very much, all three of you, for giving evidence to the Committee. I am sure that the Committee will find it useful when we go into line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.
Examination of Witness
Mark Fairhurst gave evidence.
The Chair
We now welcome Mark Fairhurst. Would you like to introduce yourself to start with?
Mark Fairhurst: Sure. I am Mark Fairhurst, the national chair of the Prison Officers Association. I am also a serving prison officer, and have been since 1992.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: We are really short of space at the moment. That is why the Government introduced an earlier release scheme to relieve some of the pressure. As it stands today, we probably have about 850 spaces left in the adult closed male estate. At the time the Government introduced these temporary measures, we had less than 200 spaces left. As the backlog in the courts gets dealt with, and we see more people getting sent to prison, we are really struggling for space. That means we now have to overcrowd already overcrowded prisons. There is a really big strain on the system at the moment. I believe that, come next spring—March or April time—we will be in crisis again with prison spaces as things start to ramp up.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: No, they did not consult us at all. It was on the backburner for some time, but we were not made aware of it until it was actually going to be announced and put into action. Our response to it would have been the same no matter what: you need to look at sentencing first and foremost, particularly for those serving the shorter sentences. That would free up a lot of space. Overcrowding prisons even more just puts more pressure on the system. We need to look at prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection as well. We have about 3,000 people who are serving indeterminate prison sentences. They are not all a risk to the public. We need to look at that as well, to free up some space.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: The problems I can foresee are that, for one, you have to have the agreement of the country you are going to deport them to. Secondly, you need to know the identity of the person and what country they are actually from—a lot of people do not divulge what country they are from. Thirdly, if you are going to send foreign criminals back to their country of origin and not insist that they finish their prison sentence in that country, there is not much of a deterrent to foreign offenders committing crimes in this country, because they will get a shorter prison sentence and will be sent back home at the taxpayer’s expense. Those are the problems I can foresee.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: Again, it is all about cost. How much is it going to cost the taxpayer? Is it practical? How do we get them there? How many are we going to send? Our budgets are getting cut year on year through His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Ministry of Justice. Are we going to be given additional funding for it? The Government have promised 20,000 additional prison spaces. That is all well and good, but we cannot build prisons quickly enough and we cannot staff them because we are in a staffing crisis—we just cannot retain people.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: It is welcome that the Government have decided that there is a presumption against shorter sentences. If they focused more on community sentences that the public have confidence in, that would help. If they focused on a re-sentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, as the Justice Committee recommended, that would free up a lot of space. But again, have we got enough probation staff in our communities to supervise offenders given community sentences? That is another big issue.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: We will just see more and more pressure heaped upon us because prisons are already overcrowded. It will heap even more pressure on people. We cannot retain staff; most of them leave within the first two years of service. We do not have the infrastructure in many Victorian jails in inner cities to accept more people, so how quickly will we build new prisons and when will they be ready? More importantly, how will we staff them? For everybody’s notation, we are seeing a ramp-up in violence against staff, and more and more incidents of concerted indiscipline. It is only going to get worse the more we crowd prisons.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: Not really. It works in the open estate. The open estate is very successful at preparing people for release and for getting back into their communities, but it is not practical in inner city local jails because we simply do not have the resources to do that. I would rather the Government focused on increasing community sentences with the correct supervision, and expanding the open estate so we could prepare people for release and hopefully rehabilitate them.
You have to understand that unfortunately in the prison system, rehabilitation is just a word—a headline. We do not have the resources to rehabilitate anybody because we do not have enough activity spaces or workspaces. We struggle to recruit teachers and give everybody a purposeful workspace in our prisons. That really needs to be addressed.
The other focus is that a lot of people in prison really should not be there because they have severe mental health disorders. They would be better suited serving their sentence in secure mental health institutions, so maybe we need to look at investing in that as well.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Mark Fairhurst: It is quite easy for prison officers to force someone to attend court; we restrain them on to a cellular vehicle and then they are taken to court. The problem arises at the other end because the courts are run by private security firms now. Have they got the staffing levels needed to take someone who has been recalcitrant off a bus and into a cell in the court? Have they got the resources to drag them into the dock if they are still displaying violent tendencies? Will that disrupt proceedings in the court? Will they be abusive to victims? Will it be distressing for the victims of crime to witness that in the dock? There are a lot of issues we need to look at.
Laura Farris
Q
Mark Fairhurst: Judges have always had the discretion to order a defendant into the dock. When we used to run a court in the ’90s, there was many a time that we would have used force on a prisoner to get them in front of a judge. That discretion has always been there. It is the right way to do things—we are best suited to decide when it is appropriate and proportionate to use force.
I would like to see dialogue between the staff in the courts and the judge because, if the prisoner is being extremely violent or aggressive, I do not think sitting them in front of a judge is the right way to do things. Maybe we could do it remotely, in a secure room, so the victim still has the opportunity to read out their impact statement, rather than proceedings being disrupted—when you do things remotely, you have the ability to mute. We could still force the prisoner to address those victims, and the victims would feel as if they were getting some sort of justice.
Laura Farris
Q
Mark Fairhurst: Yes, there have been some really high-profile cases over the past couple of months in particular. It does seem to be a trend, because there is no deterrent. If you are already getting a lengthy sentence, then really, in your eyes, as the perpetrator of the crime, you are untouchable.
As well as sentencing people for failing to appear, maybe we need to look at what we can do when they are serving their sentence. What privileges can we take off them? Can we stop them getting face-to-face visits from family and friends, or force them to do the visits remotely, as a consequence of their actions? Let’s take some privileges off them while they are serving their sentence so it really hits them hard, and so that people think that justice is actually being served—“You are not untouchable, and we are going to affect the way you serve your sentence.”
The Chair
Q
Mark Fairhurst: There is just one concern in particular with this Bill, where you are forcing serious offenders —particularly sexual offenders—to serve their entire sentence.
Laura Farris
That is in the Sentencing Bill.
Mark Fairhurst: Usually, they get released at the two-thirds point for good behaviour. If there is no incentive to behave in prison, that could have a knock-on effect on staff. Also, if you force someone to serve their entire sentence, we must remember that they are no longer subject to a licence in the community, so there is no supervision for them when they are released after serving their entire sentence. That is another consideration.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your contribution, and have a good day.
Mark Fairhurst: Thank you very much, everyone.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)
Criminal Justice Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 14th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 View all Criminal Justice Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 December 2023 - (14 Dec 2023)
The Chair
Good afternoon. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Kennedy Talbot KC, barrister at 33 Chancery Lane. For this panel, we have until 2.20 pm.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Graham, I was hoping I might declare an interest at this stage. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—as is my wife, and the Committee has a witness from USDAW coming later.
The Chair
Thank you very much; that is all recorded. Mr Talbot, may I ask you to introduce yourself?
Kennedy Talbot: Yes. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am a barrister in independent private practice. I am not part of any pressure group; I am not pushing for any particular position. I suppose the only interest that one could say I have and might declare is the fact that at the moment I am not able to be paid out of restrained funds, but if this Bill becomes law, there would be the power for that to happen—whether I would be better off as a result of that I do not know. Apart from that, my only interests are to help the Committee, if I can, to ensure that the Bill operates efficiently and fairly and promotes the orderly dispatch of this business.
The Chair
Excellent. Thank you very much. We will start with shadow Minister Alex Norris.
Alex Norris
Q
Kennedy Talbot: Yes. Speaking broadly for the moment and without commenting on the Bill—I do not think the Bill would be a vehicle to make all the changes that might be desirable—the key issue is plainly to investigate and to identify criminal proceeds and then to ensure that they are secure. That is the principal problem: by the time the courts get involved, making orders divesting people of assets, in most cases the assets have long gone. That is if the courts actually are engaged.
As you will probably recall from the report in March by the Public Accounts Committee, looking at the investigation of fraud, something like 41% of crime is fraud, yet it is largely not investigated. Of the 900,000 reports that are made to Action Fraud, only 1% result in any kind of judicial proceeding. That, from the broadest perspective, is where the problem lies—ensuring that fraud and other economic crimes are properly investigated and assets are frozen early. That is the best way to ensure that they are confiscated or forfeited.
Alex Norris
Q
Kennedy Talbot: I think it may be possible to make amendments to the Bill in two respects to deal with the issue that I have just mentioned. One involves restraint orders. I am sure that the Committee is familiar with the power for the court to make restraint orders preventing people who are suspected of crime, and then charged with crime, from dealing with their assets. At the moment, a statutory proposal in the Bill is that the risk of dissipation factor—such risk needs to be established for an order to be made under case law, not under statute —should be specified. The answer, in my view, is to scrap the risk of dissipation, so that it is not a requirement.
In many cases, what prevents prosecutors from applying for restraint orders is that they feel they cannot meet that test. Normally, that is because the case is brought to them some time after an investigation first started. The defendants are often aware that they are being investigated, and the case law more or less establishes that unless you can show that a defendant is on the point of selling his house or moving £100,000 to the UAE or whatever it may be, you cannot get a restraint order. Scrap the risk of dissipation.
Alex Norris
Q
Kennedy Talbot: That was one. The other is about receivers. Receivers have always been a very useful tool, in particular with economic crime involving businesses, because they enable the court to appoint a court officer, a receiver—normally an insolvency practitioner—to manage, run and control businesses. That was from the time that a restraint order could be made, so from the very beginning of an investigation. As a result of case law that went to the Supreme Court, however—a 2013 case named for the Eastenders Group—management receivers, as they are called, have dried up. The reason for that is that the Supreme Court held that if the management receiver was wrongly appointed in the first place, the prosecutor had to meet the costs. In that case, it was more than £1 million, which had a chilling effect, so prosecutors simply have not applied for receivers at all.
The amendment would be to make receivers’ costs payable out of central funds. There may be a way to ameliorate the problems that one might have with the Treasury. I do not know whether you know about ARIS, the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, but with that up to half of the recoveries are hypothecated back to the investigating and prosecuting authorities, but they must use them within particular accounting periods. The answer, rather than sending it all back, might be to put a portion into a fund that could be used for those special expenses. That would not cost the Treasury a single penny.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)
Q
Kennedy Talbot: No, neither am I. I am just here for clause 32 and schedule 4, and that is in schedule 5. However, I can say that I acted for a bank in a case in the High Court last year, which was effectively part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 being used to recover all the funds that were in suspended accounts, so it is possible to do it without new law, but I have not looked at the provisions of schedule 5 in any detail to be able to help with that; I am sorry.
Laura Farris
Q
Kennedy Talbot: Do you mean as they stand?
Laura Farris
In the Bill.
Kennedy Talbot: I think that the good things about the Bill include the statutory process to reach settlements immediately after a defendant is convicted. It is abbreviated to EROC, early resolution of confiscation, where the court can direct the parties to meet and seek to reach a settlement. I think that is a good idea. In my view, it needs some tinkering with, because at the moment the convicted defendant has no incentive to co-operate, and most defendants want to put off for as long as possible the day when their assets are confiscated, as you might expect. Unless we can work in some incentives, I do not think that will work as well as it might.
Laura Farris
Q
Kennedy Talbot: It might be difficult for the court to be able to ameliorate the sentence that the defendant might suffer. It may be possible to reduce slightly his confiscation liability—to give a reduction, as one gives a reduction to defendants who plead guilty—but by that stage, when we come to confiscation, most defendants are serving prison sentences, and their prison conditions are the most important thing to them, so prison privileges and categorisation might be the way to incentivise without damaging the public interest and people getting reductions in their sentences unjustifiably.
The Chair
Do any other Members have questions for this witness? No. In that case, thank you very much, Mr Talbot, for your time and for assisting the Committee in the way you have.
Kennedy Talbot: It has been a pleasure and a privilege. Thank you for inviting me.
Examination of Witnesses
Paddy Lillis, Paul Gerrard and Helen Dickinson OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Paddy Lillis, general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; Paul Gerrard, campaigns, public affairs and board secretariat director for the Co-op Group; and Helen Dickinson OBE, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium. We have until 3.05 pm for this panel. Please could you all introduce yourselves for the record?
Paddy Lillis: I am Paddy Lillis, general secretary of USDAW, the shop workers’ union.
Helen Dickinson: I am Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, the trade body for many retailers in the industry.
Paul Gerrard: I am Paul Gerrard, public affairs director at the Co-op Group, the world’s oldest co-operative society.
Alex Norris
Q
Helen Dickinson: Thank you for the opportunity to come and talk to you today. We are not technical experts on the Bill, but we are happy to talk about the scale of the issue and an amendment that we think could help to address the situation, at least in some instances.
You will hear various bits of data about the impact of violence and abuse on people who work in the retail industry. We compile data. Many businesses, such as the Co-op, have their own data. USDAW has data, as does the charity that looks after many employees who work in retail. All the different sources of data show a significant trend: an uptick in shoplifting, organised crime, and violence and abuse against shop workers and wider retail workers.
For me, there has been a big turning point this year. Businesses such as the Co-op and other frontline convenience stores are often on the receiving end when they ask a customer about age-related sales or something, but it is now many different types of businesses, including clothing, fashion and beauty businesses. It is a much more prevalent issue right across retail, rather than being concentrated on food.
The scale of it is much higher than it was pre-pandemic. The number of incidents of violence and abuse against retail workers has nearly doubled since before the pandemic, from around 450 per day across the country to around 850. I am sure that Paddy and Paul will share some specific statistics from their point of view, but that gives you an idea of the scale. It is an increasingly worrying trend that has a big financial impact on businesses, which we are all paying for in terms of inflation, but most significantly on the people who work in retail, and on customers and their families as well.
Paddy Lillis: Thanks for the invite to the Committee. As part of our Freedom From Fear campaign, we have been surveying our members for 20 years about violence and abuse towards retail staff. The idea that this thing is a victimless crime is far from the truth. Shoplifting has cost £1 billion in the last year—£1 billion for employers for security measures. That is one side of it.
The other side, which I will concentrate on, is the number of incidents of abuse, threats and violence towards retail staff. Do not lose sight of the 3 million retail workers in the UK. They deserve to have the protection of Parliament, the police, the judicial system and ourselves. We have seen an explosion of shoplifting and violence towards staff over the last 12 months. It nearly doubled during the pandemic. The sad part is that these people are working in the community, living in the community and serving the community, and they do not deserve this sort of abuse, but we are seeing an increase. I think 62% of the people we surveyed have been abused—verbally abused. About 56% of them have been threatened and 5% have been assaulted. We had a member who lost his life last August in Andover in a Tesco store, and that is the worst side of it.
We would argue that the Bill is missing a trick here in the sense that it represents an opportunity to include a statutory offence to tackle the violence towards retail staff. It is horrendous when you listen some of the stories, as we have to do every day. It is heartbreaking—from people being spat on, threatened or abused, to being assaulted, having their cars damaged, and being followed at night when leaving their stores. It is just horrendous.
I would say there are three elements to this. We have had the historical issue for many years in terms of drugs and alcohol, with people stealing them. They are probably the most dangerous. On top of that, with the cost of living—I am not condoning this, by the way—people are shoplifting. We have also seen over the last number of years that criminal gangs just see retail as an easy target, because the likelihood of being caught is minimal. If you are caught, the chances are you will probably just get a slap on the wrist. For us, this really is important. We look at the Scottish Bill that came in in 2021. There have been 6,000 additional investigations of retail crime by the police in Scotland, so it does work when there is a specific offence out there.
The other thing I will finish on is this £200 levy, where it is a summary offence—that is, it cannot go to a magistrates court. In reality, the police cannot be bothered—it is not so much that they cannot be bothered, but more because of a resource issue. If they do stop them, it is a fixed penalty notice, and that sends all the wrong signals to the criminal fraternity: “It is probably a fine more than anything else.”
There is an opportunity here, I think, to send a message out from Parliament, from yourselves and from ourselves as employers and trade unions, that this is unacceptable and appalling behaviour, and that we are all on the side of retail workers. Retail workers are in every postcode in the country, and in every constituency in the country, and they do deserve our support.
Paul Gerrard: Thank you for this opportunity. At the Co-op Group, we run 2,500 small-format convenience stores across the country. We have seen a 44% rise in incidents of crime in our stores, a 36% rise in incidents of violence, and a 38% rise in incidents of abuse.
What does that look like? Speaking to some colleagues over the last couple of days, just to get a live sense of that, I heard that a store manager was attacked by a customer “with a knife who went for his throat. Fortunately, the assailant missed my colleague’s throat, but hit him in the collar.” He had to be hospitalised. The individual got a £200 fine. There are two individuals in and around Manchester who are stealing in excess of £180,000-worth of product a year, and by the time they have sold it for a third of the price, they have a pre-tax income of £30,000 each—I am not sure whether they are paying a lot of tax on that. As a former His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs officer, I can guarantee that they are not paying a lot of tax on that. In truth, there is a quite terrifying level of lawlessness out there.
There is another thing worth noting with the current situation. We very much welcome the retail crime action plan, which is a good step forward, but we are a long way away from what it outlines. At present, the police do not turn up to 70% of the incidents that the Co-op reports. We only report serious incidents. We do not report someone nicking a ham sandwich and a can of Coke. We report the serious, prolific offenders, and 70% of the time the police do not turn up. More than that, when we use citizen’s arrest powers to detain the individual offender and call the police to complete the arrest, the police do not turn up on 80% of occasions, which means we have to let them go.
There is desperate need for a reset of society’s view of what happens in shops. If Parliament is going to give responsibility for upholding the law to individual groups—many of these offences are to do with age-related sales—it should give them protection for upholding the laws that it passes.
Alex Norris
Q
Paul Gerrard: I gave evidence to the Scottish equivalent of this, when Daniel Johnson MSP’s Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Good and Services) (Scotland) Bill was passed. Our sense is that it resulted in the police in Scotland taking incidents far more seriously. It is quite hard to come by data, but the data that I see tells me that for attendance at the scene when we report incidents, Police Scotland is one of the five best forces in the country.
Paddy referenced this: when a report is made of violence in stores in Scotland, the individual is arrested 60% of the time. England and Wales are nowhere close to that; here, it is penny numbers. I do not pretend that this is empirical, but our sense as a business is that the protection of workers Act in Scotland increased the importance of this for the police, and the police have responded. If we could get to the position of 60% of reported violent offences resulting in an arrest, my colleagues would be very grateful, as would Paddy’s members, and all the members of the British Retail Consortium.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Q
Helen Dickinson: It was like a practice for today.
Chris Philp
Q
You referenced the retail crime action plan. Paul, you just said that you thought that the stand-alone offence in Scotland got increased attention from the police. In law, assaulting a retail worker is illegal, and since the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, if the victim is a public-facing worker, that is statutorily an aggravating factor. You pointed to police attention as a benefit of introducing a separate offence. Just a couple of months ago, we all, except maybe Paddy, sat together at No. 10 Downing Street to launch the retail crime action plan. Do you agree that the commitments made in that plan, if operationalised—my expectation is that it will be, but we have to ensure that police do operationalise it—will deliver what you need, which is the police dealing with this comprehensively?
Paul Gerrard: We very much welcome that action plan. For a number of months, we have been calling for attendance at incidents involving violent repeat offenders. That is what the police have committed to. As you know, Minister, they are a long way from that; they are not attending 70% of serious incidents at present. I very much welcome the plan, and it is great that the police will turn up. I say that as a former law enforcement officer and Customs and Excise officer. When they do, they need the full tools available.
My strong view is that having a stand-alone offence will give the police, when they do turn up—I am with you; I really hope that they do—all the options they need. It will make it easier and quicker to investigate and prosecute the crime as a summary offence. I would also not underestimate, Minister, the power of Parliament saying that it is a specific offence to attack a shop worker. That will have an impact on three million shop workers, who frankly are not sure at present if Parliament cares what happens to them.
Chris Philp
Q
Paul Gerrard: When your predecessor introduced that, we welcomed it, though we said at the time that we would prefer a stand-alone offence. I remember being in a meeting —Paddy was there, as was Helen—with the then Home Secretary, the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor, and we all welcomed it. The Home Secretary said that if the measure did not work, they would revisit the idea of a stand-alone offence.
Since that aggravated offence has come in, we have seen no discernible difference. I know that the Home Office cannot tell us how often the measure has been used—I am not sure whether it actually has been used—but I do not think that it has made a difference. It cannot be used when the police do not attend in the first place.
Chris Philp
Q
Paul Gerrard: They are hugely important commitments, and we said at the time—I said clearly on behalf of the Co-op—that we very much welcome the retail crime action plan. My point is that there is still a long way to go before that happens, and I know that you are aware of that. However, when police attend, they need the full toolkit, and one of those tools should be a stand-alone offence, because that makes it quicker and easier to prosecute the individual. It also sends a powerful message to 3 million shop workers in this country.
Chris Philp
Q
Paddy, perhaps I could turn to you to follow up on that point about tools. We discussed that a little yesterday, in our retail crime steering group meeting. One of the tools that both retailers and the police have at their disposal for identifying, arresting, and prosecuting offenders, and ultimately sending them to prison, is facial recognition. They can use it retrospectively, to catch offenders, and live, to identify prolific offenders who wander into a store. Do you want to share your views on the potential that that technology has to protect retail workers, and retail stores?
Paddy Lillis: Anything that protects retail workers and the product, and makes society better, I am in favour of. I am in favour of facial recognition, but it needs to be robust, because we already know that in some areas, it is seen as something that could bring racial bias, so we have to ensure that it is tight and robust to deal with that. As for anyone going into a store who is worried about facial recognition, if you go in to shoplift, or to assault a retail worker, then you should be worried about it, but if you are going in to carry out your day-to-day shopping, you should not have a problem with it. I welcome anything that helps the retail workers.
Coming back to what was said about a stand-alone offence, there is no real data tracking. Assaulting a public-facing worker was made an aggravated element that has to be considered by the courts, but it only has to be considered. Having assault of a retail worker as a stand-alone offence means that we can track the data, and track offences going through the court system. That is the benefit of the system in Scotland; more than 6,000 incidents have been investigated by the police, and we can track them through the courts.
This whole thing is about sending out the message to the criminal fraternity that we are all on the side of workers. They should be able to go to work free from fear of being abused, threatened or assaulted at work. This has been going on for too long, and this upsurge in violence and abuse is getting worse. I really urge you to look at this again. This is a win-win for every constituency in the country. You have an opportunity in this Bill to do this.
Chris Philp
Q
Helen, we talked about the new commitment in the retail crime action plan on the police to always attend in the circumstances that I mentioned, in order to address the issues that Paul quite rightly pointed to. For the Committee’s benefit, can you talk a bit about the way that we—the Government, policing and the retail community, particularly the British Retail Consortium—can work together to make sure that the commitments in the action plan are delivered in practice?
Helen Dickinson: There are a couple of things that I would highlight. When we are in conversation with the police, they often talk about whether enough of the right information is being reported to them to enable them to act. One of the workstreams associated with the action plan is about ensuring that people right across retail are aware of what data needs to go into various police systems to enable them to respond as appropriate. There is activity on the retail side, with the support of the police, on that interaction.
The second point you are perhaps alluding to is this data question. Certainly, we have agreed to provide support in the interim period, so that data is collected on response rates. Paul is doing that from a Co-op point of view. The question is whether we can get a wider read. That impacts on this issue. We think a stand-alone offence is required because it really builds on the accountability and visibility that is required from a police resourcing point of view. I think you had various policing people here, talking to the Committee, in previous sittings. If police do not have visibility across forces on what is happening in local communities, they are not allocating resource to the right place and are not necessarily able to respond.
We can certainly help by building the data that will give us a snapshot of whether the commitments made by the police in the action plan are being fulfilled, but that is not a long-term solution that will give us the response rates required from the police to address what is becoming an epidemic across the country, and what we see on the frontline in our communities. When we spoke yesterday, you said you were worried. I think everybody here should be worried. What is happening in certain parts of the US is much worse than the UK, but we are at a real turning point. Will the trajectory be halted? Without police visibility, as well as industry visibility, of the scale of the problem, so that they can put the resource in the right place, we will not make progress on the problem.
You are looking at me, Minister; I have not answered your question. We are really keen to continue the very strong engagement that we have had with you over the past few months. I know that this is a cross-party point, and that everybody takes what is happening very seriously. We are very happy to continue to do that.
Chris Philp
Q
I have just one more question. On the issue of the stand-alone offence, which has come up again and again, we have talked about the data point, and there may be other ways of addressing it. One question that will come up as we debate this issue is that if we create a separate offence for retail workers—we already have a separate offence for assaulting emergency workers, of course—what do we say when the teaching unions say, “Can we have a separate offence of assaulting a teacher?”, the transport unions say, “Can we please have a separate offence of assaulting a bus or tube driver?”, or someone says, “Can we have a separate offence of assaulting someone under the age of 18?” A lot of groups have claims that are just as valid and strong as yours. Will we end up with 50 stand-alone offences—for teachers, bus drivers, train drivers and so on?
Helen Dickinson: That is a very valid question, but I would turn it around: if any of those other industries was saying, as we are today, “This is an epidemic on a very scary scale, and it is having a huge impact not just on the 3 million people who work in retail, but right across every single community that we live and work in,” and that epidemic was everywhere, that would be valid. However, we are saying that this is a unique situation. It is very specific to what is happening in the retail industry today, and that is why we think that you should focus on retail.
Paddy Lillis: There are about 1,000 incidents a day, and we think that that is just the tip of the iceberg, because most retail workers are not reporting them. They see them as part of their job. We are trying to get over that. If you are abused in any form at all, it should be reported, so that we get proper data. On a daily basis, there is the cost to industry of sick pay, mental health issues, injury—
Helen Dickinson: The cost of inflation.
Paddy Lillis: Absolutely. It really needs to be focused on. These are people performing a duty and serving the public, and if they are abused or assaulted in execution of their duty, they should have the protection of Parliament.
Paul Gerrard: I have two observations. I said before that I was a customs officer; I have done plenty of night shifts at Dover, and I have done shifts seizing cigarettes. I have never seen, even doing that job, the kind of abuse and violence that shop workers face. It is worth reflecting on just how unpleasant and lawless it is at times. I am not sure that other sectors can say quite the same, but it is for them to make the case.
My second point—I mentioned it before, but I will say it again—is that as legislators, you have asked these people to enforce the law, be it on age-related sales or social guidance during the pandemic. You ask them to enforce the law and put themselves at risk. The work that USDAW does demonstrates that very often violence follows enforcing the law. If you are to ask them to enforce the law, you must give them proper protection. That is the deal that I had always assumed was being made. I will not make a special case for retail workers, but if you are going to make them enforce the law, you should give them proper and special protection in the law for doing so.
Chris Philp
Q
Paul Gerrard: There are a couple of things there, Minister. First, I would say yes, although that provision is for all people in public-facing service. The difference here is that if my colleague decides to sell alcohol to someone they should not sell alcohol to, they will face a criminal sanction. This weekend, I was in Manchester, and one of my colleagues refused to sell cigarettes to a minor, who jumped behind the kiosk counter, attacked every single kiosk, and pushed, shoved and threatened staff. If they decided, “Actually, I do not want that to happen; I will just sell them the cigarettes,” they would be breaking the law. That is the difference.
I get the point about public service—as a former public servant, I think that is right—but if you are asking people to enforce the law, you should give them special protection in the law through a stand-alone offence, of the kind that I had when I was a customs officer. It is a stand-alone offence to attack a customs officer, because they are enforcing the law.
Chris Philp
I will certainly continue to work with you all, regardless of the details in the Bill, to get the retail crime action plan fully implemented and bring into force a zero-tolerance approach. I think we all agree that that is necessary, and I will do everything possible to ensure that the police deliver that operationally. Thank you for your work in this area, and I look forward to keeping on working with you.
Alex Norris
Q
Helen Dickinson: I agree completely with that comment. The reason why over 90 chief executives signed the letter to the Home Secretary from right across different parts of retail was that they are concerned about the fact that they are doing all they can, but feel that there is nothing more they can do. Paddy mentioned some statistics.
How do I describe it? It has two big impacts: one is financial, on the bottom line, how the profit of companies will be impacted unless they do everything that they can to address what could impact their business; and the second impact is on their biggest asset, which is their people, whether that is in absenteeism, morale or motivation to do their job well. Those two motivating factors, from a business leader point of view, mean something to every single business leader that I talk to. Literally, that is probably the thing that comes up most in the chief executive conversations that I have, because they feel that they have done everything that they can and that they are running out of road in terms of things that they could do.
The Minister asked about facial recognition, and I know that that is being explored by a lot of people. There have been various announcements about body cameras. People pay money into business improvement districts and regional partnerships. We have the Pegasus Project, which is trying to get better co-ordination across different parts of the police, specifically focused on organised gangs. That is being funded by retail businesses. They are not handing it all back and going, “It’s someone else’s problem.”
That is my answer to whoever it was. I am very happy to put them in front of any retail business, and I am sure they will be given lot of reasons. Paul, I do not know if there is anything you want to add.
Paul Gerrard: The Co-op is one of the businesses that is funding Operation Pegasus. Over the past four or five years, we have spent £200 million on security measures in our stores. That is four times the sector average. If you go into some of our stores, you will see state-of-the-art CCTV, body-worn cameras and headsets. We have increased our guarding budget by almost 60% from pre-covid days. We are constantly investing. We have had a problem with kiosks, where people jump behind the kiosk counter, often armed, terrifying colleagues who are still in the kiosk. We have just invested heavily in new kiosks to stop people from doing that.
Helen is absolutely right: the retail sector takes this really seriously. We consider the first responsibility to be ours, which is why we invest as much as we do to keep colleagues and shops safe, but we are getting to the point with some stores in the Co-op estate and across retail where it is increasingly hard to work out how to run a store that keeps colleagues safe and can make a commercial return. That will mean that shops will close, and we all see what happens when shops close: communities face tough times.
I have heard the police express that idea that we are not doing anything. They have had a similar, less-than-polite response from me when they have said it, because it is patently untrue.
Paddy Lillis: It is 21st-century Britain, and we have retail workers with body cams on—it sounds like a war zone. At the time, we are trying to get things right and get people back into the towns and city centres, but we are helpless. It is a societal problem, something we all need to work towards addressing. We must put the support we need behind retail staff and businesses. I have worked with them. Security measures just last year cost £1 billion, with more and more going in, but somewhere along the line we all pay for that. It is a massive problem that has to be addressed.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
The reason why the Government—rightly—responded to proposed changes for emergency workers was that we had seen a huge increase in activity: attacks on vehicles, on people, and everything else associated with that. Helen, would you like to talk a little bit more about that, and just clarify that it is also your understanding that it has soared in the retail sector, whereas some of the other categories that the Minister referred to have, in fact, remained relatively static?
Helen Dickinson: I think Paul summed it up. I cannot comment on behalf of other industries, because I am not close to what might be happening. I engage a lot with my peer group across different sectors, and it does not come up in the same way as it does when engaging with my members.
Paddy Lillis: Retail is an easy target for people. It is an easy way to make money, as Paul outlined earlier. In today’s climate, as I said, there are three areas: the cost of living, addiction to alcohol and drugs, and now the criminal gang element. The retailers rightly told me that this is a golden quarter. It is a golden quarter as well for the criminal gangs, because they are in there robbing the shops under the cover of thousands of people shopping every day.
Paul Gerrard: If you were to ask people who have been in retail for decades, nobody would say they have seen anything like this, even during covid. No one has seen this scale of crime and the—often weaponised —violence and abuse that goes with that. It is out of control. We released CCTV footage earlier this summer, and it is like a riot trying to get into some of our stores, because people are intent on stealing and causing violence and abuse. I do not think anyone in retail—Paddy has been in and around retail for much longer than me—has seen it like this before.
Helen Dickinson: Businesses such as the Co-op—in convenience— have often been at the frontline, because there is that proof of age required when somebody is buying alcohol or cigarettes or whatever else it might be. He is seeing that escalation, but there are other sectors that would never have raised this as an issue now bringing it up as the most significant thing impacting their business. One of my members is a beauty business with only one or two staff members in its stores. It has the same organised gang turning up, week in week out, using abuse and violence to basically get the staff to step back so that they can literally just sweep the whole stock. A business like that is potentially going to shut up shop, because it is not worth it in terms of loss. I do not know if we have quite answered your question.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Paul, in your earlier evidence, you talked about the difference that you believe the change has made in Scotland. I think you said that there was a 60% arrest rate. I think it is probably in single figures south of the border. How much of that do you think is due to the law change, and how much is maybe a change in police policy, or the fact that police numbers have increased a little in Scotland?
Paul Gerrard: I am not sure I can talk to the latter point. I would say that in Scotland we see a police force that is taking it more seriously. Maybe they have more officers; I do not know. They take it more seriously. I think Daniel Johnson MSP’s Protection of Workers Act has sharpened minds and given a really strong message that the Scottish Parliament considers an attack against a shopworker to be a particular kind of crime. I said that there is a 60% arrest rate on reported violent incidents. We are absolutely nowhere near that in England, because they are not turning up enough to do that.
Helen Dickinson: The visibility of the tracking means that it prioritises the resource. That then increases the response rate, and it becomes self-fulfilling.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Helen Dickinson: Not without the measurement to be able to prioritise it.
Chris Philp
Only to put on record that we actually have record police numbers now. It is not getting back towards the peak; the peak has been exceeded by about 3,500—
The Chair
That is on the record. In that case, I thank the witnesses for their time and for their very open and full answers.
Examination of Witness
Clare Wade KC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Clare Wade: I am Clare Wade, a criminal barrister specialising in defence. I am a KC. I tend to specialise in domestic homicide, whether that is murder or manslaughter; increasingly, that is my practice. I have specialist experience in defending women in particular who kill their male abusive partners, but I also defend men who have killed their female partners, so I have quite a lot of experience in that. I was appointed as the independent reviewer for domestic homicide sentencing and wrote the domestic homicide sentencing review. I am here to answer any questions about my expertise on that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: Clause 24 encapsulates one of the recommendations in the review, building on the secondary legislative proposals to put into law the aggravating factor of killings at the end of a relationship. I have to say that it looks a little odd in the Bill because it is, as it were, stand-alone. The intent behind the policy is to have a coherent legislative policy that addresses all the harms, and addresses the particular harms in these cases. We now have in the secondary legislation the aggravating factor of coercive control as something that has happened in terms of the history of the relationship by a perpetrator towards a victim, and vice versa—it is a mitigating factor as well.
Obviously, these killings nearly always happen within the context or confines of domestic abuse and, in the cases we looked at, we found that there was frequently an escalation in domestic abuse when the victim—in the majority of cases, a woman who is killed by her male partner—wants to leave the relationship. That particular recommendation was made because not only is that a real harm, and that represents the real danger, but the policy underlying the other recommendations is one that places the concept of controlling and coercive behaviour at the forefront of the thinking.
The real harm in terms of coercive control, which the law does not yet recognise, is entrapment. It is not fear, as in being continually afraid, and it is not necessarily physical injury. It is entrapment, which is what prevents people who are being abused from leaving relationships. Putting that into legislation as an aggravating factor that can be taken into account by the courts would make it clear that that is one of the harms, but it would also, I suppose, bring to our consciousness the real harm in domestic abuse.
Of course, we are really only just getting to the stage where we understand what underpins domestic abuse—in my view, it is controlling and coercive behaviour, as I have explained it in the report I wrote.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: Two things, I suppose. It is important to look at the terms of reference that I was given when I was asked to conduct the review. Two issues presented themselves in terms of problem areas, as it were, in the law as it stands. One of them was an issue that had really precipitated the whole campaign. In our sentencing framework for murder, we have various stages by which we attribute the gravity and seriousness of the offence. One of those involves taking a weapon to the scene of a murder with the intention of using it, and then using it in committing the murder. There is a 25-year starting point in relation to that, whereas most domestic murders—and we found this to be the case in the cases we looked at—have a 15-year starting point.
One of the problems identified was: why was there that disparity between people who have taken a knife to the scene and been convicted for doing that, and people who may not have taken a weapon to the scene but have reached out and used a weapon? We found that the real harms in the way in which those offences are committed were nothing to do with taking a knife to the scene—that really was a red herring. The real harms that were being identified by secondary victims—the mothers of the women who had been killed—were things such as overkill. One of the things that struck me when I looked at the cases was something that Julie Devey said, which was: why is it that you can take a knife to the scene, stab somebody once in a single stab wound and face a starting point of 25 years for your minimum term, and you can stab somebody 79 times in their own kitchen with a knife and face a starting point of 15 years?
I was able to discern that one of the harms was something that we have called overkill, which has now been accepted as something that should be legislated on by the Government. However, I concluded on the overall package that the whole issue of taking a knife to the scene, the 25-year starting point and the disparity was a complete red herring, and that the issue of taking a knife to the scene will inevitably lead to anomalies—for example, you might have a man who kills his ex-partner, takes a weapon to the scene and is therefore eligible for a 25-year starting point, but in real terms of culpability it is no different to killing her in the home. The real issue was something else—other sorts of harms that pertained to these murders.
Therefore, the whole 25-year starting point should be disapplied when we are dealing with domestic murders. Nothing is lost by that. That has obviously been rejected, and there is now a further consultation on having a 25-year starting point or a higher starting point, but it is completely otiose in my view if you take into account the real harms that we have successfully identified and that the Government have taken on board. You will reach the same result in coming to the sentence, but you will reach it by identifying the real harms. That is one thing that I would say probably needs to be looked at again.
The other thing is strangulation. We looked at the killings in our sample—and obviously the literature, frontline responders and everything else—and strangulation is a gendered form of killing, in the sense that in all but one of the cases that we looked at in our sample, it was used as a method of killing a female, usually by an abusive male, within a context and a history of controlling and coercive behaviour. So I recommended that strangulation ought to be an aggravating factor, and that has been rejected. The argument, as I understand it, is that it places too much emphasis on the mode of killing, but it does that for a reason because it is a gendered form of killing.
The corollary is that the use of a weapon, which is not a statutory aggravating factor but is often seen as an aggravating factor, should in my view not be an aggravating factor necessarily. Women who kill men who abuse them always use a weapon, because it is not possible for them to commit a murder without doing so. So those two factors concern me. I am with Nicole on that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: I will speak to clause 24 first, if I may. I think it probably does go far enough in terms of that point because it says “connected with” the end of the relationship, and that is sufficiently comprehensive. In terms of grooming, on the face of it, yes, I suppose. I am not sure if there is a definition. I am always perplexed by the lack of a legal definition of grooming. Even in the cases that I do, we all have an understanding of what it is, but I am not sure it is properly defined. I did not see anything, but I might have missed it. When we ask victims, “What do you understand by grooming?”, for example in the cases that we do, they say, “Somebody pretending to be your friend, but not being your friend and using you for sex.” It is not defined anywhere and it is such an important concept.
In many of the sexual offences, particularly historical sexual offences, grooming is now taken into account in directions to juries about consent. They are asked to consider whether consent was true consent, given the background of grooming. It is a massively important concept. It is floating around, but maybe not sufficiently nailed down—I don’t know. But yes—on the face of it, yes.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: I would have to consider it further, but I suspect it is probably all right. We are talking about the management of risk factors within that context. I imagine it is probably all right, as you are talking about convicted persons.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: “Intimate relationship”, certainly in the work that I do, would mean partner/ex-partner. I will turn that round—do you think that is too narrow?
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: I think it is probably right if we look at some of the definitions elsewhere, certainly in terms of the controlling and coercive behaviour that it brings into the management.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: I was thinking about that in terms of some of the scenarios that present themselves in domestic abuse situations. As I recall, the mens rea for that is intentional, which means that it is not too broad. However, off the cuff, I would say that it certainly fits in with some of the cases that we see that result in the suicide of people who are trapped in relationships that they cannot escape—for whatever reason: whether a combination of mental health factors or entrapment. Therefore, I would probably support that. I do not know whether it needs to be narrowed down or not, but certainly, for more remote relationships, it is an important legislative provision.
The Chair
Alex, I will let the Minister ask some questions for now, but there may be a moment to come back to you afterwards.
Laura Farris
Q
We all know that you are, of course, supportive of the clause 24 provision, which mirrors what you recommended, but I wanted to ask you about some of the things that you have just said. You said in your report that you found that coercive control underpins all domestic abuse. I think that you also made reference to the fact that there is now a consultation happening on minimum sentences in two regards. The first is in relation to whether any killing—any domestic homicide, to use your language—where there has been coercive control should attract a minimum sentence. I think that that goes a bit wider than anything that you put in your review. I will ask you about that first, and then I will go on to the second part.
Clare Wade: My view about setting minimum sentences in stone is quite strong. I am actually not a fan of minimum terms and starting points because I think that it takes away quite a lot of judicial discretion. Even though they are only starting points, we often get stuck with them. There is an argument that schedule 21 is probably not fit for purpose. As I say in the paper, it is frozen in 2003 and it comes with the problem that there is always this issue of, “Do we add another starting point in?” I think that the 25-year minimum terms has done nothing but cause problems.
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: Yes, it was.
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: Yes, that is one of the problems, I think. There are two issues. First, it creates legal anomalies anyway, because once you delineate a starting point for something like that, you have all sorts of problems about, “When is it taking something to the scene?” and you then have laws saying that taking a knife to the doorstep is taking it to the scene but taking a knife to another room is not taking it to the scene. That just reduces confidence in the law, I think; it just causes anomalies.
Secondly, as it stands, it does not fit with the other sorts of categories of harm within schedule 21 because, as I say in the report, it does not consider the vulnerability of the victim. It has one harm at purpose. That has caused all sorts of issues in terms of an obvious disparity, and we identified that disparity in the review. There is a disparity of six and a half years on average.
So it causes problems, and yes, you are absolutely right: it obfuscates the real issues because, by looking at the cases that we have looked at, looking at the literature and looking at our experience and the experiences of frontline responders and so forth, we know that the real issues are about what is now being identified as overkill or gratuitous excessive violence. The real issues are about, “Why do we not have a proper forensic approach to domestic abuse?” We do not have that. The whole idea of placing controlling and coercive behaviour and the model that I have identified at the forefront of the thinking is to achieve a proper forensic approach. We will not have this woolly attitude and people saying, “That’s not proper abuse,” and basing stuff on myths and so forth.
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: First of all, there were only two cases in the actual sample that came within the “rough sex” category: gross negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. In one of those cases, culpability was levelled at category C, so around the middle, and in the other at category B, so higher culpability.
I said that those cases should always involve higher culpability, because the risks of some of the behaviour, in particular with strangulation—while that was not apparent in the cases that we looked at—are high. At the moment, the law distinguishes between “obvious” and “high”, and my view is that this is just a legal nicety when you are talking about strangling or choking somebody. All the experts will say—
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: No, it is not. The court is always constrained in terms of section 36 applications and referrals. They are always constrained by what evidence was before the sentencing court. There was found to be this distinction between “obvious” and “high”, and I am not sure that can exist.
My view is that we need to look at everything, and look at society as a victim. We need to dismantle the cultural scaffolding that goes with some of this offending, if we are really going to tackle domestic homicide. There is such a resonance with other harms. Even the harm of overkill, which is about obliterating women’s bodies because of anger and the motivation to kill and so forth, is apparent in strangulation. It was very important to look at that.
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: It is a source of tension. The Sentencing Council has also said that the cases are decided on their own facts. I would agree that a real tension is there. In only one of the cases that we looked at did the sentencing judge find that it was high culpability.
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: Yes, there was another one that was category C—given that there were two cases, 50% of them were category C.
The review is probably the first document that brings into consideration the current thinking of academics, campaigners, specialists and doctors. There has been a lot of research done, for example, by Dr Cath White on strangulation. It brings it all into play, and we are trying to have a coherent approach. The beauty—if I can call it that—of using the coercive control model, is that it gives us that. As I said before, ultimately we want a proper forensic approach to domestic abuse in criminal law.
My view is that that approach is lacking at the moment, and that is why we struggle. That is why there is seeming injustice, for example, when a minority of women kill their abusive partners. They do not always get justice, as some of the research shows. Only by having that proper forensic approach across the board will we be able to change things. That is important.
The other point is that the Sentencing Council is conducting its own review—I have not seen all the cases it looked at—and what applies to that applies to my review as well: sentencing comments in themselves are an imperfect way of measuring everything that underpins these cases.
Laura Farris
Q
Clare Wade: The victim cannot give evidence. If you are looking at sentencing comments, you are not looking at the evidence in the case. Take the two cases with which we started the review, those of Ellie Gould and, in particular, Poppy Devey Waterhouse—the review was initiated by the campaign on those cases. I was able to look at the prosecution case files and see that some of the factors we were able to identify in looking at the evidence were apparent in those cases.
In one of the cases, there was some stalking; in both cases, the killing happened at the end of the relationship where the victim wanted to leave the relationship; there was a little bit of violence. We found those factors, but they were not necessarily apparent from the sentencing remarks—one had to look at the papers through the coercive control prism to be able to identify them. Looking only at sentencing remarks is an imperfect way of looking at all these cases. That is why I welcome the Law Commission looking at the issue of defences.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Clare Wade: I would obviously welcome that. We have had some very high-profile cases where police officers have committed dreadful offences. Public confidence, particularly the confidence of women, needs to be restored in policing, so I would welcome that transparency.
I suppose there is an underlying cohesion in some of what we say. For example, one of the questions that we wanted to answer in the review is how domestic homicides sit and fit with misogynistic killings of women generally. I hope that by identifying the real harms and placing them at the forefront of the law, we are able to show that. That goes back to some of the things we were saying a moment ago, namely that strangulation is a particular harm. It is pertinent to domestic killings, as we identified in the review, but it is also something that happens in other misogynistic killings of women. It is important to not just be able to isolate domestic killings of women, but have a policy that encompasses the misogyny that underpins some of the awful offences we have seen in the last few years.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness on behalf of the Committee. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday 11 January to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Westminster Hall
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
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
Spiking
(1 year 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
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of spiking.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I wish to extend my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. It is a timely debate, given that we are in the season of Christmas when, sadly, we would expect to see an increase in spiking incidents and the subsequent sexual violence primarily against women and girls. I thank my co-sponsor and Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is so ably chairing here today. I know she shares my passions and concerns about the subject and it has been a pleasure to work with her on the issue. I also thank hon. Members across the House who have given their support for today’s debate. I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has worked relentlessly on the issue.
I want to highlight my support for the e-petition on making it a legal requirement for nightclubs to thoroughly search guests on entry, with a particular view to preventing date-rape drugs from entering nightclubs, and also the e-petition on funding free drink-spiking tests for all bars. Over 190,000 signed those two petitions, including many in my constituency of Bradford South. That reflects how strongly people feel about the subject across this country.
I will begin by briefly speaking to the enormity of the issue. Spiking is not new or rare in this country. In a YouGov poll of 2,000 people commissioned by The Independent, 11% of women and 6% of men said that they had been spiked. The National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee that
“the true figure of spiking occurrences are likely to be much higher”,
with estimates showing that 97% of spiking victims will never report the incident to the police. To protect innocent people across this country, the Government need to act urgently and Parliament must afford the victims of spiking the attention that they deserve.
A year has passed since the last time the issue received a full debate in this place—I see some familiar faces here today—but there has been little progress. We might have even gone backwards. At that time I stood in this very room and called for immediate action and I spoke of the need for a specific criminal offence for spiking. Last week the Prime Minister responded to a question that I posed in the Chamber about a specific offence on spiking by saying he remains satisfied that
“existing laws…cover the offence of spiking”.—[Official Report, 6 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 335.]
The National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee that the absence of a clear criminal offence presented a challenge in policing spiking. It also said that a stand-alone offence would help police to
“understand the scale of the problem…enable a far more accurate picture to be realised”
and allow
“enhanced support for victims”.
I am sure that hon. Members across this place will agree that there can be no more dither and delay. A new stand-alone criminal offence of spiking is needed now. The absence of a specific offence for spiking is causing untold damage to innocent people across this country, particularly women and girls.
Freedom of information requests submitted by Channel 4 recently revealed that drug-spiking incidents reported to police have increased fivefold in five years, but the proportion of investigations leading to a criminal charge has fallen. The number of reports that were investigated by police and resulted in a criminal charge have dropped from an appalling 4% in 2018 to a shocking 0.23% last year. That is just one in every 400 spiking crimes reported to police resulting in a criminal charge.
The Home Affairs Committee report concluded that the absence of a specific offence for spiking, along with
“limited reporting, investigation and prosecution, means there are few deterrents for offenders.”
Indeed, with a charging rate that rounds down to 0% it is no surprise that victims do not have confidence in our current laws when it comes to spiking. There are currently seven separate criminal offences under which the crime of spiking can be prosecuted and, importantly, recorded. Five of those date back to the 1800s. It is time that Parliament took a stand against this injustice and created a stand-alone law on spiking that is fit for the 21st century. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have been active in highlighting the dangers of spiking at music festivals, and I have given evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on this issue.
Festivals are a big business, with some directly marketing towards 16 to 17-year-olds—so much so that they are now seen as a rite of passage on completion of GCSEs. Those who attend events can camp overnight, with festivals attracting populations equivalent to a small town; for reference, Leeds festival is attended by around 100,000 people. The police presence is minimal, and the lack of safeguarding training for members of staff can subsequently lead to severe issues with the non-reporting of spiking, sexual assault and rape. Indeed, a female survey respondent was quoted in the Home Affairs Committee report as saying:
“I got the impression that event staff…thought that I had taken drugs willingly as opposed to being spiked”.
That is a clear example of a victim not being believed or understood due to a combination of ignorance and a lack of safeguarding training.
It seemed an obvious and positive step forward when the Home Affairs Committee report recommended that all staff working at music festivals, including vendors, be given compulsory safeguarding training, and it was disheartening to hear that the Government do not intend to mandate training for all staff at events such as festivals. I urge the Government to reconsider that position, because this terrifying lack of safeguarding at music festivals is a clear blind spot and it cannot continue. Many hon. Members will share my view, and my experience, that what should happen to tackle violence against women and girls does not happen unless specific legislation is put in place to make it happen.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee of its difficulties in getting a true picture of how widespread spiking is. To highlight the dangers at music festivals, I made a freedom of information request to nine different police forces regarding 11 of the most popular music festivals over the past 10 years. The findings were shocking. They included nearly 200 cases of reported rapes and sexual offences against children as young as 12, and 32% of the cases reported were against children under the age of 18. However, in the 10-year period to 2019, the data that I received recorded just 10 instances of spiking. Devon and Cornwall police gave examples of two spiking offences at Boardmasters festival recorded under the offence of administering a poison or noxious substance. At Reading festival, Thames Valley police noted a case of spiking, but it was recorded as sexual assault.
With cases of spiking reported under different offences in that manner, it makes understanding the scale and nature of this issue difficult. The opportunity to identify patterns in the crime is being missed, and the ability of our legal system and laws to detect, prosecute and prevent this crime—to seek justice for the victims—is undermined as trust is eroded, therefore feeding the cycle of under-reporting.
I therefore welcomed the news that, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Government were legally required to publish a report outlining the nature and prevalence of spiking in this country by April 2023. We are nearly eight months past that deadline and the report is still not forthcoming. The Government have failed in their legal duty to publish that report. In giving reasons for their delay, the Government argued that they had cause to consider with colleagues across Government whether their rationale for not introducing a specific offence for spiking was sound.
I suspect that, in being forced to gather data on spiking, the Government have now become aware of the difficulties in collecting and understanding that data, which is a direct result of the absence of a specific law on spiking. By failing to create a stand-alone law, the Government have been left blind in the face of even an issue so prevalent and widespread as spiking. The Government must publish their report on spiking, and I call on them here today to clarify if and when they will now publish that report.
In 2022 the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), rightly stated that the Government were looking into
“a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly”.
However, in January 2023, a Home Office Minister carried out a policy U-turn by saying that a new law on spiking was unnecessary. Then, in a letter in July 2023, the Home Office said that it was reconsidering whether a specific offence was required. Last week, in response to my question, the Prime Minister suggested that he did not believe that a specific offence of spiking was necessary. On an issue that demands certainty and clarity, we have a Government who are uncertain and unclear on their position. In April 2023, in relation to spiking, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the leader of the Opposition, clarified that
“an incoming Labour Government would make it a specific offence.”
There were 34 signatories to this debate across five political parties, so I know that there is broad support across the House to create a stand-alone law. This situation demands determined action. Will the Government stay true to their legal obligations and publish their report on spiking? And please, Minister, do not give me the kicking-it-into-the-long-grass response of, “Yes, but shortly”—just tell me when. Will the Government finally do the right thing and recognise spiking as a criminal offence in its own right? There can be no ambiguity here. Now is the time to act to defend the innocent victims of spiking and ensure that these vile perpetrators face the consequences of their serious crimes and feel the full force of the law.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to contribute they should bob.
Vicky Ford
Thank you, Ms Nokes; it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for giving us the opportunity to discuss spiking again. My constituency of Chelmsford is home to a vibrant and much-enjoyed night-time economy. We have many bars, clubs and restaurants. People come up to Chelmsford to enjoy a night out, not only from Essex, but even from London. We are very proud of our safety record. Chelmsford holds a Purple Flag for safety in the night-time economy, and we did not just get that Purple Flag this year or last year; we have had it every year for the past 10 years. We have a wonderful reputation for keeping people safe, and we want to keep it that way.
From time to time, however, some dreadful stories come to light even in Chelmsford. In February, a very brave woman shared the story of what happened to her when she was out in Chelmsford with a group of girlfriends. She had only had one cocktail when she started to feel dizzy and sick, and then she suddenly started to have spasms. Fortunately, her friends acted quickly. He mum came and collected her and brought her straight to A&E at the local hospital. A video was then shared of her when she was at A&E. Her body was contorting and she was groaning, “I want to die.” She had a complete lack of control of her own body. That went on for six hours. When she came round, she noticed a small mark on her arm and that her arm was painful. She believes that she was stabbed and spiked. Goodness knows what would have happened to her if she had left the bar, left her friends and been all alone in the dark when that occurred. How vulnerable would that young woman have been?
I would like to thank my local police, who treat this problem very seriously. They have been working very actively on hotspot policing in Chelmsford city centre for the last few weekends, including last Saturday and Sunday night, when they were doing spiking awareness campaigns in the bars, clubs and restaurants. I would also like to thank the owners of the many bars, clubs and restaurants, who I know also treat women’s safety seriously. I have been in with many of them to discuss the CCTV arrangements that they have in place to monitor safety, and the fact that many of them make available stoppers or covers for your drinks bottle or glass. But why should a woman have to put a stopper in her drink? Why should she have to put a cover on her glass? Why should she not feel safe just to lift up her own drink that she has bought to enjoy with her friends, and take a little sip from it? Spiking is abhorrent, it is intolerable, and it is unlawful. It must not be allowed to continue. Perpetrators must not get away with this.
Spiking is illegal, but the law against it is incredibly outdated. It goes back to the Offences against the Person Act 1861. I happen to be one of the small number of Members of this House who is currently serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Criminal Justice Bill that is going through Parliament right now. On Tuesday this week, we took evidence from real experts. I asked some of them whether they felt there was a need to modernise this legislation and make the language absolutely crystal clear—in terms that people will understand today—and they agreed. They agreed that spiking is unlawful, but that the language needs updating.
I know I am joined by colleagues in this place today who also agree that updating the language of the law will help to lead to more prosecutions and make it absolutely clear to those who want to commit this type of offence that it will not be tolerated, and therefore it will act as a deterrent.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the private Member’s Bill that I introduced faced an analogous problem: there was no specific criminal offence against the public harassment of women. For a long time that was considered unnecessary, so these crimes—as they were—were under-reported. Now there is a specific criminal offence; it is clearly illegal to abuse someone on the grounds of their sex in public. I am pleased to say that was backed by the Government and the Home Office. Is that not a precedent that the Minister may wish to draw on to make progress in this very important area that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) are highlighting?
Vicky Ford
I absolutely agree, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for the work he has done on women’s safety. We must make it crystal clear that this offence, which can affect men but most usually affects women—often young women —is unacceptable. We must have that law in language that people today understand with great clarity.
I thank my great and hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who has campaigned on this issue so relentlessly and so effectively. Two weeks ago, it was an honour to join him in a meeting with the new Home Secretary. The new Home Secretary is one of my Essex constituency neighbours; I know that constituents of his come to my constituency for their nights out, and I also know that he cares deeply about the safety of women. Together, we pressed the case that there needed to be a specific criminal offence for spiking. The Home Secretary listened intently to the case that we made, and I ask him, through my right hon. Friend the Minister here today, to please act now. Table an amendment to the Bill that is going through Parliament now. I know I speak for all members of the Public Bill Committee when I say if that amendment is tabled, we will pass it and have it on the face of the Bill by the time it comes back to the whole House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I am quite sure that if you were not chairing this debate, you would be right over there on the Government Benches participating in it. You have shown leadership and clarity in this matter, and we all appreciate that. I wanted to say that, because I know you cannot speak in this debate while you are in the Chair.
It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), a fellow Omagharian. We were born in Omagh at different times, but none the less we both come from the same town. We have an interest in many things relating to Northern Ireland, but today we have an interest in the issue of spiking.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is here. I have supported his campaign the whole way through, because I believe it is right. It is as simple as that. I believe we all think so, and I hope he can push this legislation through. He will find us all standing behind him.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) is a good friend. I was a co-signatory to her application for this debate; she nabbed me in the Backbench Business Committee, if I recall rightly. I was applying for another debate, but I was very happy to support hers once she informed me what it was about.
Spiking was not much on my radar when I was younger. I am older than probably anybody else here, so I go back just that wee bit further than most. I do not remember ever having the issue of your drink being spiked and someone then taking advantage of you, but I well remember as a father, along with my wife Sandra, urging my three boys to be careful when they were out. Our real worry now, as I am in the grandparent stage, is for the grandchildren. I have six grandchildren: they are not at an age to be going out yet, because they are all very young, but the 14-year-old is going on 18 or 19, and she will quickly come to that age.
The fear is one that is replicated in universities throughout Northern Ireland. I read an interesting article—this probably goes along with what the right hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to. Queen’s Radio, a radio station for students, has spent time going through the issue to raise awareness. I welcome what has been done at Queen’s University Belfast, because it is important that the matter is highlighted and awareness is raised in Northern Ireland. Students need to be aware of these matters. The Queen’s Radio website states:
“In November 2021 alarming statistics on drink spiking in Belfast were released by the PSNI.”
The stats refer back a few years, but none the less they are still salient. I will give hon. Members some idea of what that meant:
“Throughout that month alone, 120 incidents of drink spiking had been reported”
in one month in the city of Belfast. That is horrendous. The question we all ask ourselves is: are we scraping the scab? Is that just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak? The article continues:
“Amongst these cases, one of Northern Ireland’s main universities (Ulster University) had reported three incidents whilst chief constable at the time Simon Byrne was speaking of the issue as a ‘priority’ for his team.”
The Police Service of Northern Ireland made it a priority to raise awareness, make their constables on the beat aware and visit pubs to highlight the issue.
The article states:
“However, there exists a plethora of young people out there who continue to experience the issue at close range within Belfast. Upon speaking to a first-year student who was spiked whilst celebrating her friend’s 21st birthday several months ago, she spoke of how she does not normally drink a lot and was only planning on having one drink that night.”
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford gave an example of a lady; I will give a similar example, but it is the same issue wherever it may be.
“After ordering a vodka blackcurrant at a bar in the city centre, she left it sitting at her table for less than a minute”—
that was all it took—
“and continued to drink it upon arrival back at the table”,
not realising that anything was wrong.
“It was just after consuming around half of the drink that she recalls everything going ‘fuzzy’ in the room and beginning to feel drunk ‘which was almost impossible since I had only had less than one drink.’”
She could not quite understand what was happening.
“After experiencing this, she left the bar with some friends”.
That is one thing we need to emphasise to young people: it is always good to have a pal. It is always good to have someone, and to keep an eye out for each other. In this case, that is what saved her:
“she left the bar with some friends as she didn’t feel well. Whilst she is thankful that she got home safely and the incident ‘didn’t end too badly’ she spoke of her continuing shock that she experienced side effects symptomatic of excessive drinking”,
which quite clearly was not the case.
[Clive Efford in the Chair]
Unfortunately, the story is replicated throughout the UK. I believe it needs to be a priority not simply for police forces, but for universities. There is a role for us all to play: parents, elected representatives and the police, as well as pubs and hostelries. I know of some community groups that provide so-called spikey stoppers free over holiday periods. Those are very important as we approach Christmas and the new year. As much as I hate it, it is necessary; unfortunately, such things have to be part of the life that our young people and others lead. I believe that universities must give them to students free of charge, and that bars around campus should be urged to ensure that students are using them.
As we come to the festive season, I think of one my very wise 92-year-old mum’s sayings, which I believe is always relevant. She is still compos mentis; she might not be as physically active as she was, but she is still there to tell her big boy what to do and the right way of it. One of the wee sayings she has given us over the years is “James, when the drink is in, the wit is out.” Unfortunately for some people, they are left witless not through choice but either because someone thinks it is funny or for a more nefarious reason: because someone removes the choice of being in control.
I know of one household that will not allow their young adult to go out with their friends without knowing who is the designated sober sidekick, the one person in the group who is not drinking and is watching out for others. In the society we live in, it is right to have that designated person.
Will the Minister consider a cross-departmental approach to provide protection and advice, along with police forces targeted at student areas? Whether such roles are for universities, higher education, local councils and their officers or the police, there is a strong need for things to change.
I commend the hon. Member for Bradford South for setting the scene and giving us a chance to participate. I always like to give a Northern Ireland perspective, but what I am talking about is no different anywhere else; it is happening all over the United Kingdom. I am, as always, pleased to see the Minister in his place. I know he grasps the importance of the issue and will respond in a positive fashion. I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has also been active on this matter. I am also pleased that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North is back among us. I said that I would miss her contribution, but now I will not have to. I look forward to it.
I will finish with this point: our young people have the right to go socialising. They deserve that right. It is their life. It is the life they lead and the life they have chosen. That should not come at the expense of taking their lives in their own hands because of somebody’s nefarious and criminal activities. I believe that through debates like this one, we can do more to help. I hope that today will be the first stage. If the hon. Member for Gloucester intends to press this matter in the Chamber, I am confident that we will all be there to go through the Division Lobby in support. To be fair, I think the Minister grasps the issue, so there may be no bother in getting the Government to come along with us.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am sure Richard Graham is as surprised as I am that I am calling him to speak.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this debate, with the wholesome support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). It is worth noting—particularly for those who are watching the discussions from afar, or for those, including Dawn Dines of Stamp Out Spiking, who have come a long way to join us today—that although the room is not crowded, we have many supporters from all parties in Parliament. The fact that others have different things to do on a one-line Whip day is irrelevant to the importance of the subject we are debating.
It is now two years since my first ten-minute rule Bill on spiking; it is 20 months since the Home Affairs Committee report; it is one year since a debate in this Chamber in my name; it is six months since my second ten-minute rule Bill on spiking; and it is only a month since a new Home Secretary took up his position. Patience is a virtue, we are told, and so I believe. Today, with the Minister for Security in his place for a second time to hear a debate on spiking—the second time that spiking has momentarily taken over from his normal national security responsibilities—we may have a chance to take things forward.
Why do I say that? Why do I have more optimism than the hon. Member for Bradford South? Because the scale of the problem, which we have identified in several earlier debates of this kind, is even greater than we had imagined. We know that 5,000 cases of spiking were reported last year, we know that spiking is not an offence in its own right and therefore the police do not collect formal data on it, and we have already described that figure of 5,000 as being the tip of the iceberg, but that iceberg is even bigger than any of us imagined.
Last night, I was stopped by two researchers in Portcullis House, who thanked me for the work that I and others—some of them are here today and some are not—have been doing on spiking. I asked one of them what her experience had been. She described vividly the occasion when she had been spiked in London. She felt extremely ill, went to the loo and locked the door. She then passed out and lay on the floor of the loo for about four hours. She only knows that it was about four hours because later she looked at her watch. She never spoke about this incident to anyone in her family, or even to the man who is now her husband, and least of all to the owner of the establishment where she had been having a quiet drink with a friend. Of course, she has not mentioned it at all to the police.
That experience is absolutely not unusual; it is what has happened to so many people around the country. I came down to this debate in the lift with two other young researchers, both of them unknown to me; no doubt I was also unknown to them. I asked them if they had had any experience of spiking. One said, “No, but I’ve got several friends who have been spiked.” The other one said, “My sister was spiked and one of my best male friends was.” This is a very common thing, and it is not unique to females, although the vast majority of cases are against females. As one of them described it to me, the overriding feeling she has about spiking is that the aim, above all, is to humiliate.
That is where the element of violence against women and girls comes in, and—in answer to something the hon. Member for Bradford South said earlier—that is why the Prime Minister gets it. As the father of two young girls, he sees this absolutely as something that should worry every parent in the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who is currently a Minister in His Majesty’s Government, has gone public with her experience of being spiked, and there are others here who have family members who have been spiked, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North.
This is not unique to us in Parliament. That iceberg that I described a year ago is just massive. The emphasis therefore has to be on how we can find a way through some lawyers’ belief that this crime is already defined in different ways in law. We have been through this two or three times, and the Minister has been very sympathetic to the case that has been made.
Because we have a bit of time in this debate, it is worth highlighting those who are not here today but who have been so supportive. I have mentioned some Members who are in the room, but I also want to highlight my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), whose description of her own constituency’s nightlife stands alongside the description of the Leeds festival by the hon. Member for Bradford South. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has stood up for this cause all along the journey, described the experiences of his constituents in Northern Ireland, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has done work on an analogous incident. All that work is important.
We have heard examples in previous debates from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), a former Home Secretary who has been very supportive of the cause; the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) for the SNP; the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition; and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), and for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who was due to be here in a different capacity, highlighted on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill the experience of his constituents Mandy and Colin Mackie, who created Spike Aware UK after their son, Greg, tragically died from spiking. There is an assumption that spiking is something that happens, and that the person feels very ill for perhaps 24 hours and then recovers. Mentally, I am not sure that they recover completely for a very long time. I am a strong believer, from what I and other colleagues have heard, that these things linger as a mental health and confidence-destroying issue for a long time to come. Certainly, physically, the assumption is that everybody recovers, but Greg Mackie did not; he died. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not here, but I wanted to mention that.
We also heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who has experience of being in the police force, has been very supportive, and we heard from the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) brought her experience of what has happened in Wales, alongside the Opposition spokesman, and we heard from the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
It is worth mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) because I was led to take up the challenge of spiking two years ago by my constituent Maisy Farmer, who was spiked while at university in my hon. Friend’s constituency. All those Members have made a huge difference. I ought to also highlight a former Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), whose support for this cause as a Minister and a Back Bencher has been equally resolute.
My point is that this is not a journey that involves only the half-dozen of us here today; it has very wide support across the House. If a researcher had the time and energy to talk to every Member in this House, we would have thick volumes of anecdotal evidence of cases of spiking affecting those individuals’ families, staff, friends and, above all, constituents. This is a major issue.
The reason I see more cause for optimism is that the Government have the opportunity to use the Criminal Justice Bill, which is in the Bill, to create a new offence of spiking that would define it for the first time, bring together elements of the 1861 Act and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, modernise the language, enable data to be collected, knowledge to be increased and best practice to be shared between police forces, and raise greater awareness in all levels of society and age groups. On Second Reading of the Bill, I raised the story of a colleague’s constituent, a 60-year-old male who was spiked, was raped and had his wallet stolen on a rare visit to London. This issue cuts across age groups, gender, ethnic heritage—everything. All our constituents will be better supported, and the humiliation of spiking will be gradually reduced, if the Government focus on putting this offence into the Bill.
It is fantastic that the hon. Member for Bradford South has gathered us together in this Chamber to discuss spiking again. I really do believe that this time the opportunity is with us. I have been accused of being a perpetual optimist since starting on this trail two years ago, but I believe it can happen. I believe that, after today, and perhaps after we see what is in the Criminal Justice Bill, Stamp out Spiking may have the opportunity to believe not that spiking will end, but that the country will see that we in this place are united in making sure that the offence of spiking is created, defined, recognised and dealt with in the best way possible. Thereafter, we can focus on the implementation and how police forces, universities, those in the nightlife economy and others make sure that the message is clear.
It is almost Christmas. Let us believe that Father Christmas, in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Minister, may have some good news to share.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Efford, not just for calling me to speak but for stepping in after I stepped in earlier. This debate is an object lesson in multitasking.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and, of course, my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). It is always a privilege, particularly on this issue, to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has campaigned tirelessly for two long years, as he so ably highlighted. It does not seem nearly a year since we were last in this place discussing this issue, but I like to think that we are on the edge of a breakthrough. I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister for support, encouragement and enthusiasm on the issue.
The last debate was well attended. I think it is fair to say that this debate has fewer contributions, but obviously of an exceptionally high quality. It shows that we still care and are still concerned about the numerous stories that our constituents bring to us. I am still shocked by the incidents that are highlighted to me in my role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Just over 11 months ago, we were calling for specific legislation to address this issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that the Home Affairs Committee has done a great deal of excellent work on spiking. Its report of April 2022 is tagged to this debate, and the hon. Member for Bradford South gave evidence to that Committee on the very specific issue of spiking at festivals.
I wish to touch on that issue briefly, because I went to Glastonbury—I think it was 18 months ago. This was a departure from normal behaviour for me, but I spent an entire day with the Avon and Somerset Police and with some of the stewards at that festival. What I saw was really heartening and encouraging. I saw stewards going out of their way to ask festival-goers whether they were okay. I vividly remember seeing a young girl huddled almost in a foetal position on the floor—it was bitterly cold—and a steward stopping, checking that she was okay and putting his hi-viz jacket around her. It was really encouraging to hear at first hand from the police about the efforts that they were making.
However, moving on from the 2022 report, the assurances given to the Home Affairs Select Committee and the welcoming of its recommendations by Government, we still do not have specific legislation on spiking. I want to highlight why that is important, and why it is a great pity that the Home Affairs Committee is still waiting and police forces, police and crime commissioners and, indeed, victims and potential victims, are still waiting. It is because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) highlighted, the legislation to which we tend to revert when talking about spiking is from 1861. That is not even the last century: it is the one before that. It is really remiss of the Government. In many instances, we can rely on very old legislation for good purpose, but the offence of spiking had not been dreamt up in 1861. I did a bit of research on how one might spend one’s leisure time in 1861. We had not heard of nightclubs at that point; the steam-powered carousel had just been invented; young people were certainly not going anywhere near bars and nightclubs, and they were not being forced to put plastic stoppers in the top of their bottles or covers on their glasses.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the 1861 Act. The Minister will know that section 22 of that Act refers to the use of chloroform and laudanum. Those were popular instruments at the time that Act was created, and they also feature in Sherlock Holmes’s exploits quite a lot, but does my right hon. Friend agree that that sort of language needs to be modernised?
Caroline Nokes
That is exactly the point. The Act talks about chloroform and laudanum, not Rohypnol, GHB or the various other date-rape drugs that are either dropped into glasses or injected into people’s arms or legs—other body parts are available. That is the stark reality and why the legislation has to be modernised. We have a 21st century problem and we need a 21st century solution to it. We know that the Government are committed to producing and publishing a report on this issue. I believe it was the hon. Member for Bradford South who highlighted how long we have been waiting for that.
I spoke earlier this week to the safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), and asked her to continue to think positively, but speedily. What matters is that we need a solution. The only reason she is not here today is because she is doing great work in the Criminal Justice Bill Committee. I gently point out to my good friend the Minister—I believe he is a good Minister—that he is the Security Minister and we are talking about the security and safety of our young people. I promise him that I am not going to get shouty with him, but I gently ask: the Home Office’s Sir Matthew Rycroft said in his response only two days ago to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee that news would be forthcoming “shortly, so how short is “shortly”? I ask because the epidemic of spiking does not abate.
Last time we were here, we all raised the horrendous case of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who has experienced spiking. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester also alluded to an experience. I do not think I have ever mentioned this explicitly in this Chamber, but I asked my daughter whether she had ever been spiked. She highlighted two occasions, one when she was collapsed in a toilet of a nightclub and was picked up by the security staff from the floor, carted through the entire nightclub and dumped on the pavement. That is what happens to teenage girls: they get ejected from nightclubs because the assumption is that they are drunk—she was not drunk. She may well have been drinking, but she assured her mother that she had had only one drink. It was only because her friends saw her being carted out through the nightclub and went to the rescue that she was safe. She told me of another occasion when she had had only one drink and firmly believed that she had been spiked. She and her friends regard this as commonplace—that is the horror here. They do not report spiking to the police or to any authorities; they just accept that this is a risk they will run in order to go out and have a good time. That is absolutely horrific. I always point out that my daughter is a lot smaller than me, and I questioned whether this was something that happened only to petite people. A constituent of mine told me about the case of his wife who had been spiked in a nightclub, and she is tiny. I thought, “Is this happening only to small people? Am I therefore safe?”. No, apparently, I am not.
I wish to mention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester did, the work done by Spike Aware UK, because we regard spiking very much as a gendered crime, but Greg Mackie died because he was spiked. His parents Colin and Mandy—Colin has been in touch me with ahead of this debate—have done great work since 2017, highlighting the scale of the problem, the importance of educating young people, and the importance of educating venues and making sure that they are putting protections in place. But we do need to better understand the scale of the problem; we need better data. With spiking crimes being recorded more often alongside rapes, sexual assaults and robberies, we need to have data that shows us exactly how many people are being spiked. We also need better reactions to this; we need blood tests and tests in hospitals quickly to identify the victims, because the challenge is that many of these substances are processed in the body very quickly. We need evidence to drive good law, and I have no doubt that the Home Office is going to drive good law.
I have mentioned Spike Aware UK, but I also wish to pay tribute to Dawn Dines, of Stamp Out Spiking, whom I have spoken to as part of the work that my Select Committee has done. I want to touch briefly on why people might seek to spike other individuals, which others have referenced. I believe that it is by and large a gendered crime, but it can happen to men; it can happen to boys. We think of it as being driven by sexual gratification, but it can be driven merely by wanting to be entertained by watching someone’s reaction. More and more cases are now being driven by a desire to perpetrate robberies. We are hearing of cases of people being frogmarched to cashpoints and forced to withdraw cash while they are incapable of making rational, sensible decisions about what they are doing because of the substances they have been given. However, as Spike Aware UK would point out, it is not good enough for us to have legislation in this place and it is not good enough for us to be aware: we all have to be actively anti-spiking. The Home Office has done some work in recent years on being an active bystander—the British Transport Police also does that brilliantly. It is about looking out for other people’s drinks and observing the behaviours of others in nightclubs and bars.
I absolutely endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford however: why should we have to do that? I have never forgotten the experience of Emily, a young girl from Southampton who was a student at the University of Southampton when she was spiked. As a result of that, she came to my office, and her father told me her story very eloquently. She came and did a period of work experience in my office. While she was there, there were two other teenage girls doing work experience, and we had someone from a company come to us with female protection kits, as I will call them loosely. He had a range of kits. There was a kit for dogwalkers, to protect them from being attacked while out walking the dog. There was a kit for students specifically, which contained plastic stoppers for bottles, lids for glasses, their own straw, and so on. It had some of the tests for testing drinks. I let Emily loose on him, because her instant response was, “Why should I have to? Why should I have to have a 20-point checklist to keep myself safe when I go out at night?” Emily is right: we should not have to. But in the current climate, tragically, we do.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is making such a good point about the experiences of Emily and others. Does she agree with me that the evidence collected by the Home Affairs Committee was very powerful and very helpful? I want to pay tribute to the Chair, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who cannot be here today, but who led on that and helped to provide evidence that I hope the Home Office will consider carefully. As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, the work of Stamp Out Spiking is also crucial in collecting this anecdotal evidence from so many people. Without that base of research and knowledge, it would be much harder to make the case, which I hope Ministers are finding more compelling.
Caroline Nokes
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. That brings me to the Home Office’s own campaign, Enough, which, people will be relieved to hear, is my closing point. A message I would like to give the Minister very clearly, which is driven by the comments I have gleaned from Spike Aware UK, is that it is not enough for the Enough campaign to focus its activities around universities. By the time a young person has reached the grand old age of 18, that horse may already have bolted. We know from the excellent work of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and her Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester rightly paid tribute, that many spiking incidents happen at house parties. We like to think that when we are surrounded by our friends, we will be okay. Sadly, the truth is that young people under the age of 18 will attend house parties and young people under the age of 18 will be spiked at house parties. They are vulnerable when they are at school and college.
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. I recently met a group of sixth-formers from one of my Chelmsford schools. The point they made to me was that, while it is all very well to give awareness to young women when they start university about how to stay safe, they turn 18 before they leave school and would quite like to go and celebrate their 18th birthday parties together. Does she agree with me that more could be done through the school curriculum and at school age to prepare people for turning 18?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend anticipates where my speech was going. On the Enough campaign, I think it is right to focus on freshers’ week, which is a particular area of vulnerability, but by the time young people are 18 it is too late in some instances. Many will turn 18 while they are still at school and college. The Government’s statutory requirement for relationships, sex and health education finishes at 16, so when someone becomes a practitioner between the ages of 16 and 18, they are not supported.
I gently say to the Security Minister—in the same way that I would have said and, indeed, have said to the current safeguarding Minister, the previous safeguarding Minister and the one before—that RSHE needs to be inclusive up to the age of 18. My Select Committee has called for that in one of our reports, and it is crucial. The RSHE review needs to focus not on gender issues, but on the everyday problems that our young people face on their journey to adulthood, which include drugs, spiking, normal adult sexual relationships and trying not to learn about them from pornography. We have to be bolder when we are talking about what is and is not age appropriate. We have to equip young people to be cognisant of the risks, challenges and difficulties they will face, whether financial or anything else, through a programme of RSHE that is effective and preferably taught by experts, rather than the maths teacher on a Friday afternoon.
I commend the Enough programme. I celebrate it: I have a sticker on my office door—what a shame that I feel the need to say “Enough” here. The stark reality is that we have to ensure that we are taking the lead of brilliant organisations such as Stamp Out Spiking and Spike Aware UK, so that young people have all the tools in their armoury to be protected as they move into adulthood.
I have a final message for the Minister. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be encouraging and positive about this issue, because he is a good Minister and understands how important it is. He will have heard the strength of feeling across the Chamber on the need for specific legislation. I look forward, with my fingers crossed and my hopes high, to exactly that. My final plea, which I have made to a number of Home Office Ministers over many years, is that we must look at RSHE as an opportunity to equip young people with better skills to lead their adult lives. I know that the Minister will pass on this message to the safeguarding Minister: please play an active role, by working with the Department for Education and the myriad other Departments that touch the lives of young people, in ensuring that the RSHE review is fit for the 21st century, in the same way that we should have a piece of legislation on spiking that is fit for the 21st century.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford, and to follow that barnstormer of a speech from my friend, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). It is also a privilege to respond to this debate, which is on a pressing issue. As we have heard, it mostly impacts women, but it can happen to anyone up and down our country. I am grateful to my good friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North—for bringing this important debate forward. It is the second debate on the issue this year—just over 11 months since we were last talking about it. Sadly, the same issues persist, and it is a sad indictment that we need to have this debate yet again.
As we have heard, spiking refers to the practice of administering a substance to a person without their knowledge or consent, and it can be perpetrated in a variety of ways. Drink spiking involves adding alcohol or drugs to a person’s drink with the intention of intoxicating them, and needle spiking involves injecting a person with drugs or other substances. Frustratingly, the official statistics on spiking are not routinely published. Can the Minister elaborate on the Home Office’s plans to rectify that alarming gap? The current estimates, from a YouGov poll in December 2022, tell a stark story: 10% of women say they have had their drink spiked; and 35% of women say they have either had a drink spiked, know someone who has or both. Worryingly, four in 10 Britons say they do not think the police would believe them if they reported a drink spiking. There is no doubt that this is an epidemic.
As colleagues will also be aware, the true number of spiking incidents is almost certainly far higher than the number of incidents reported. The under-reporting of incidents may occur for several reasons, but it seems clear that the perception the police are unable to do anything about it prevents victims from coming forward. When spiking is currently not even a specific offence, is it any wonder that victims feel there is no point in getting the police involved?
Behind every spiking incident is a traumatised victim, very often a young woman, and we all deserve better. Part of the problem we are seeing relates to the crisis our criminal justice system is in thanks to this Government’s complete ineptitude. An investigation by The Guardian and Channel 4 recently found that drug spiking incidents reported to the police have increased fivefold in five years, yet the proportion leading to a criminal charge is falling. Almost 20,000 reports of spiking were received in the past five years by 39 police forces that responded to freedom of information requests submitted by Channel 4. The proportion of those reports that were investigated and resulted in a criminal charge dropped from one in 25 in 2018, to one in 400 in 2022. These are shocking statistics.
The prevalence of spiking is sickening, but worse still, I feel we are living in a country that has normalised the fact that women and girls must themselves take preventive action to prevent being spiked on a night out or in a friend’s home. Every woman deserves to enjoy their night without living in fear that a predatory man with a drug to slip into their drink, or just as shockingly, with a needle, could be lurking nearby.
Colleagues will recall that Labour has long called for the Government to introduce a specific offence for spiking and intent to spike. Indeed, we even tabled amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill calling for urgent action, and a review of the prevalence of spiking and the criminal justice system’s response to it. Sadly, the Government did not agree, so the amendment fell. The Government could easily commit today to referring spiking sentencing to the Sentencing Council, so I must press the Minister: why exactly is the Government not doing the right thing here?
While a new, separate offence would be welcome, we all know that new criminal offences alone are not enough to eradicate spiking. I strongly believe we also need to go further to end the culture of victim blaming that can often lead venue security staff to dismiss victims’ concerns, or refuse to take allegations seriously. We urgently need the Government to develop an anti-spiking strategy with every local authority and every Department that can use their licensing powers to regulate the night-time economy to change the way that victims are treated.
In the absence of a joined-up strategy from the UK Government, some local authorities and community groups are leading the way in their own communities. I am very pleased that my own business improvement district in Pontypridd has participated in International Stamp Out Spiking Day, and have also committed to delivering spiking-awareness training to the Pontypridd Pubwatch group.
I am also very pleased that my constituency’s local authority, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, has used its statutory duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to create a community safety partnership that puts tacking violence against women and girls at the centre of its work. Through that, South Wales police has been able to deliver night-time community safety patrols, and I commend it for providing this reassuring police presence. Let us be clear: spiking is an issue that largely affects women and girls, and it is about time that we use the correct language here.
More broadly, local authorities like mine must be commended for their efforts, and these steps are all very welcome. But as I touched on earlier, in the absence of a joined-up strategy from the UK Government involving the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Home Office, these efforts are not enough.
As I have already mentioned and heard today, there is good work going on around the country, and the Minister should carefully look at that work. I am not just talking about my own area; as we have heard, there are examples of good work happening in Chelmsford, in Bradford, and across the country. In Birmingham, for example, if someone leaves a nightclub there are lots of phone numbers that bouncers and others can use to get a trained professional from St John’s Ambulance to come and make sure that person gets home safe. That is really simple stuff, but the Government have failed to lead from the top.
From cultural change, to showing some simple humility to women who have been impacted, there is clearly lots for us to do to protect women and girls from this vile practice. As we know, spiking is often associated with a whole host of misogynistic behaviours that fundamentally seek to undermine women and our independence.
The Labour party has repeatedly pushed the Government to go further and prioritise measures that will protect women and girls on our streets and in their homes. We have made a strong commitment that will see a perpetrator programme specifically designed to tackle the 1,000 most dangerous abusers on our streets. We have consistently called for violence against women and girls to be part of the strategic policing requirement that has been promised by the Government, but sadly not delivered.
Police forces are not yet required to tackle crimes against women as a priority. That is unforgivable, and yet another example of a Tory Government failing a generation. As I have already said, this is the second debate on this issue this year, and sadly the Government have failed to make any progress. I hope the Minister will accept once and for all that the Government must step up and take urgent action—urgent action, because we are all waiting—before more lives are impacted and more confidence is lost.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
It is very nice to be here with you chairing this debate, Mr Efford, particularly after my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was able to start off the process—at least she has also had time to give us her thoughts. It is also a huge pleasure to be here because, as some have noted, this is my second outing speaking about spiking, so it is extremely important to me that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North brought in this debate again.
I read up on this matter quite carefully last time, which led to me giving my own opinion, and not just that of the Department—I hope that was useful. This time, I am pleased to say I am able to give the Department’s opinion more clearly, which is certainly helpful to me, anyway. It was also great to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that his mother is as vocal as he is—though I am confident she is not in the Adjournment debate of her time and has many more opinions to give, as does he.
First, I must say that my thoughts here are with the victims of spiking. As has been noted already, in many different ways, the number of people who are affected by spiking is sadly much greater than is commonly recognised. Indeed, there is no typical victim; there is far too much variability in those who are affected and pained by this. Of course, it is not only the immediate victim, but very often their families, partners and friends who—even if they were not victims of the actual spiked drink—will feel more vulnerable, less safe and more frightened to go out in their community. Clearly, all that has an effect on every one of us and on all our communities as well.
Supporting victims of spiking and ensuring that they get every possible support is a priority for this Government. I urge anyone who suspects they have been spiked to contact the police as soon as possible. I have to say, the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on reporting to the police are extremely concerning. For the avoidance of doubt, spiking is now illegal, and police will take action against it.
Equally, we must send a strong and unequivocal message to the perpetrators of these despicable acts that they will be caught and brought to justice, because these are vile and dangerous crimes. As well as the immediate risk to the victim’s wellbeing, the shock and distress suffered can, as has been mentioned, result in psychological turmoil and an ongoing and very unnerving ordeal. It is no exaggeration to say that the impact of being spiked could last for years, or even a lifetime—for some, it sadly does. No one should ever be made to feel vulnerable in their social setting, or in their home or someone else’s home. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North asked so powerfully, why should they? Enough.
That is why this Government have been working closely with the police and other partners to tackle spiking. I will set out some specific elements of our approach as I respond to the points that have been raised. I will start by addressing the publication of the statutory report on spiking, which the hon. Member for Bradford South quite rightly raised. I understand the frustration at the delay—my understanding is that the report will be published very soon indeed. Though my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) tried to undermine my children’s belief in Father Christmas by naming me as Santa, I hope very much that I will indeed be bringing good news in the days before the close of the year. However, it will be up to the Minister responsible—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris)—to decide when and how she addresses the matter.
Richard Graham
As the Minister points out, the last time he spoke in this Chamber on this issue, he was able to anticipate a future Home Office position on spiking. It is very rewarding to hear that the new Home Secretary and the new Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who has a strong track record on issues relating not only to violence against women and girls, but social justice in general, are thinking apace as to how we could move things forward in a way that all Members present would like. I am grateful to this Minister for highlighting that, and I hope he will pass on our thanks to the other Ministers, but we do look forward to the detail and the substance.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend knows that I cannot make any announcement at all. I am merely positive as to the direction; it really is for the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury to announce the Home Office position. I am sure she will do so as soon as she is able. She has arrived in the Department with a determination and with inspiring energy. She is not only an excellent colleague in her role as a Member of Parliament, but a fantastic ministerial colleague, and she will add hugely to the job of safeguarding the people of the United Kingdom, particularly those who are vulnerable in the evening. I do not want to say any more for fear of jumping ahead of myself. She has already done a huge amount of work, and I am sure that, if she is able, she will make further announcements
On the legislation, I want to make it clear that spiking is already illegal because various pieces of legislation set out prohibitions that incorporate the offence of spiking and they can be used to prosecute offenders. We have worked closely with the police to establish the range of powers that are currently available to them and the best methods of enforcement.
However, we are mindful that the modern offence has particularly insidious features, and we are carefully considering the range of views that have been expressed on this, especially from Conservative colleagues who have made compelling arguments on this matter. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) who has spoken very powerfully about this not only during this debate, but on many other occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester likewise has in many ways not only led this debate today, but over many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has led many of these arguments for many years.
Vicky Ford
We may be able to make more progress on awareness. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made a point about the importance of giving evidence and how quickly evidence can disappear in the body. I have been told by local police that they often need a urine sample, which is not as complicated as a blood sample. In trying to secure more prosecutions, it is important to try to make people aware that that is the sample that they would need to give. I want the crime to stop, but I also want to make sure that, if it happens, we can hold the perpetrators to account. In the package of things that we might do in the future, there is space for more awareness of the methods of evidence giving and what evidence is needed to get the tracing of drugs in the system and ensure we can get the prosecutions.
Tom Tugendhat
I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury hears those points specifically and takes them up with the relevant authorities. I am sure she will be interested to hear them, because police clearly have a vital role in tackling this issue. I pay tribute to them for helping to shed light on these awful crimes. In many ways, they respond extremely effectively. I can speak for Kent police; others will have to determine the efficacy of the actions of their own forces.
Kent police does take spiking extremely seriously, but it can be a complex and challenging crime to investigate. I will pass on the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. Drugs can pass through the system quickly, leaving often limited evidence for others to identify and to point to offenders. These crimes can happen in the highly dense environment of the night-time economy and in places where it is difficult to identify the perpetrator.
Since autumn 2021, police forces across England and Wales have been stepping up action on spiking. That includes developing and rolling out an online spiking reporting and guidance tool, which should greatly simplify the reporting of spiking. The police approach to tackling spiking is being co-ordinated by Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth, the national policing lead for violence against women and girls. The police continue to submit samples using rapid testing capability developed with forensic provider Eurofins Scientific. That has been invaluable in broadening our understanding of which drugs are being used and how frequently.
It is crucial that we have in place a consistent and effective national approach. Equally, the work taking place on the ground in communities is essential. In a number of towns and cities across England and Wales, uniformed police officers are visiting venues and working closely with licensed premises and staff. Plainclothes officers are trained to look out for concerning behaviour, while control rooms monitor CCTV so that officers can be sent directly to any suspicious or dangerous locations.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Minister for what he says about the efforts of the police so far, but he will probably agree that many police chiefs, including my own in Gloucestershire, the excellent Rod Hansen, and the police and crime commissioners around the country—all of them collectively, including Chris Nelson in Gloucestershire—are clear that being able to collect data on a specific named spiking offence would help enormously. For local communities the work done by people such as Councillor Justin Hudson, who leads on communities in Gloucester City Council, working with the night-time economy, that combination can be very powerful in raising awareness and reducing the likelihood of these things happening.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I know will have been heard by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. As he knows, she will be looking at the many comments made this afternoon and indeed over recent months before publication of the report, which is due out very soon.
Officers can also carry out licensed checks on taxis, bars and clubs and can work closely with welfare organisations and help venues to step up their own security efforts, such as increasing searches. The story that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North told us about her daughter, who would have been left on the street had her friends not intervened, demonstrates that extra training is necessary, because the idea of dealing with a situation like that by abandoning a young woman outside strikes me as extremely unwise, to put it politely, positively dangerous and—I should be cautious of my words.
Many venues have given extra training to staff to ensure that all reports of spiking are logged and reported immediately. This is not an exhaustive list of the activity that is being mounted to tackle the threat, but as the examples I have mentioned demonstrate, there is a real focus across the system on gathering intelligence, identifying perpetrators and protecting people around our communities. The Home Office continues to manage cross-Government work on spiking with an emphasis on practical action that can deliver real and lasting improvements. Some of the interventions targeted at tackling spiking include bystander training programmes, taxi monitors, CCTV, street lighting, drink protectors and educational training for the night-time economy staff.
In April 2022, following expert advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Government reclassified the so-called date-rape drug GHB and two related substances from class C to class B under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Through “Enough”, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has mentioned, the Government’s national behaviour change campaign for tackling violence against women and girls, we have rolled out spiking-specific communications and campaign activity at summer music festivals and universities across the United Kingdom. I am very glad to hear that it is being picked up and used appropriately.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the Minister for giving way on that specific point. Music festivals—great. University freshers week—great. Will he work with his wonderful colleague at the Home Office to see whether we can have a roll-out to younger age groups, too?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend pre-empts me. I was just about to say that this is not a crime that begins at the age of 18, a point that she made so powerfully. I am sure that our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury will be extremely interested in hearing about this and will no doubt take it up with the Department for Education to make sure that we co-ordinate action in the best possible way and get the right response in order to protect young people.
Richard Graham
Just to add to that, our right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North is right to highlight the value of raising awareness in schools. Indeed, every time I go and talk to sixth forms I ask them about spiking and a lot of hands go up. It is also true that for families—parents and grandparents —awareness is useful. Is the Minister aware, for example, that the character Amy Barlow in “Coronation Street”, played by Elle Mulvaney, has recently been going through a lot of spiking issues after seeing somebody put GHB in the drink of a friend of hers? The storyline continues on spiking. In fact, if he and his colleagues are able to make significant changes, they might find themselves playing a part in “Coronation Street” as well.
Tom Tugendhat
Though I bow to no one in my admiration of the great city of Manchester, I cannot honestly confess to being a “Coronation Street” aficionado. “The Archers” has had episodes about this issue at various points, and, if the hon. Gentleman chooses, we can discuss those, but I am afraid that is as far as I go with that storyline.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is giving a very comprehensive and helpful response, which we all appreciate. I always ask, and it is only right that we do ask, that whatever recommendations and thoughts come out of this debate, and whatever the Minister takes forward with the other responsible Ministers, he gives an undertaking to share that information, any suggestions and any legal intentions with the Northern Ireland Assembly—just so that we can be on par with where the Government here hope to be.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member for Strangford makes a very good point, which is that this is an issue not just for GB issue but for the whole United Kingdom. Where appropriate, engagement with the Northern Ireland Assembly is absolutely right, and I know that many friends of the hon. Member in Northern Ireland will be very concerned about the matter, as is His Majesty’s Government, who are concerned about the whole United Kingdom; he makes an extremely valid and powerful point.
The Home Office has supported Universities UK and the Department for Education working group on spiking, which is chaired by the vice-chancellor of Exeter University, Professor Lisa Roberts, to provide guidance to universities on spiking. We have provided communications on spiking to local authorities’ bulletins and supported the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s bespoke communications targeted at the freshers period, but none of that undermines the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North made about earlier education. That is a snapshot of the work that we are doing, and we look forward to setting out further details very soon.
In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North for securing this debate, and to all who have contributed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was extremely keen to be here, but sadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North correctly said, she is doing important work in supporting a Public Bill Committee to make sure that important legislation gets through. It is a pleasure to be here in her stead, for the second time in that post, as it were, speaking about a matter that affects us all.
I will take this opportunity to once again urge the public to remain vigilant, particularly as we come up to Christmas and the new year. We all know that this is the time when people quite rightly want to celebrate—or commiserate—the end of the year, and to be together with friends and enjoy some time off. Sadly, it is a time when some people will be left more vulnerable, and it is important that we look out for each other. It should not be so—that should not be necessary, and we are looking very carefully at how legislation may need to change to ensure that it is not—but, as it is, the point has to be made that this is, sadly, a dangerous time of the year, and that it is worth being cautious.
There should be no doubt about how seriously my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, the Home Secretary and the whole of the Home Office take this issue. We will continue to work closely with the police and other partners to crack down on spiking through the various measures that I have outlined and, no doubt, through various measures that have been outlined by others here today. We will do everything we can do bring measures in as soon as possible and to keep people safe.
Judith Cummins
Belatedly, I will say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I thank Members for their contributions and interventions; I am very grateful to them. I reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for this debate today and to my co-sponsor, the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for all her work in helping to secure this debate.
I also thank, once again, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for all his hard work on spiking and I commend the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), for her outstanding work on spiking.
I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for speaking so movingly about the experience of her constituent, about the right of women to enjoy a night out without having to worry about spiking, and about the need to update the law.
I thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is no longer in his place, for his intervention, in which he spoke about the need to legislate for the protection and safety of women in public spaces.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke about his long-standing support for a stronger law on spiking, his constituent’s awful experience of spiking, his worries on behalf of young people everywhere, and—importantly—the need for a cross-departmental approach to student safety.
I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester again for speaking about the widespread prevalence of spiking and the sheer volume of victims, including those he had personally spoken to, and the drive of the perpetrators of spiking to “humiliate” their victims. But he also spoke about his optimism that change could be achieved, including the creation of a specific offence of spiking.
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North has so ably multitasked today, demonstrating both her chairing and speaking abilities. She spoke about the need to update the outdated laws and about the gold standard of safeguarding at Glastonbury, which is very important. It is unfortunate that other festivals do not emulate that gold standard and will not do so without legislation. She also spoke about the need for data to drive good law, which is another very important point.
I reiterate that this Government must abide by their statutory duty to publish their response to the report on spiking immediately. The Minister saying “shortly” again is not good enough, because it has been “shortly” for quite a long time now. It is clear from this debate that there is cross-party support to engage in legislative reform to make spiking a criminal offence. We must work to ensure that the trend of rising reports of spiking and lower charge and conviction rates is reversed, and that spiking is ultimately halted.
Now is the time for legislative action, now is the time to eliminate any ambiguity in our legal system that prevents understanding of the scale of this issue, and now is the time to create a specific offence of spiking, so that victims can have the confidence that they are protected by the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of spiking.
Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet
(1 year 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet.
First, I thank hon. and right hon. Members for being here. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate. We have some people in the Public Gallery today who have an interest in issues around persecution and in particular of Buddhists in Tibet. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is here. In all the time I have known her—my time in the House is the same as hers—she has always had a particular interest in Nepal. I am very pleased to see her here to participate and to add her vast knowledge of the subject to the debate.
I am not yet quite sure who the Minister is. I am sure he is on his way. There may be other things happening and there may be a change of ministership as we sit here. Who knows? Whoever the Minister is, they will no doubt make a contribution shortly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. What happens if the Minister is not in his or her place? This is the first time this has happened to me since I have been a Member, since 2015. Others may have experienced that dereliction of duty, but I have not—and not on such an important subject.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
If another Minister or Whip cannot be found in time, the Parliamentary Private Secretary should be advised to take notes and rise at the end to make apologies on the Minister’s behalf. They should inform hon. Members that the Minister will respond to the points made. PPSs cannot make specific speeches on behalf of the Government, but I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who I know is very assiduous, will make an assiduous note.
Jim Shannon
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for that clarity. It is important that we have that; she is right. With these debates, we do not fill in a Thursday afternoon just because we have a bit of time; we fill it in because we have subject matter that is important. We are all here for that. We hope the PPS can take copious notes on all the important points and that the Minister, when he or she arrives, makes sure the responses that we seek are the ones that are placed on the record.
I am grateful that we are having this important debate on the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet. The people of Tibet are dear to me, so I find the topic to be of special importance. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those of Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. Today, we are speaking for those with other faiths; we are speaking for those who have the Buddhist faith. Buddhists are among our stakeholders on the APPG and they are very important to us.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman mentions that, I wish to pay tribute to him for his work for so many faiths: for the Christian faith, particularly and regularly, but also remembering in China that Buddhists and Muslims are persecuted by a vicious regime. The hon. Gentleman is more assiduous than any other Member in the House, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He and I share a similar faith and in this House we both realise that we serve a greater person—a greater God. Our job in this place is to do that, and we do so faithfully for all religious views as well.
A delegation was organised by the APPG, and I understand that the hon. Member for Congleton has also been in Nepal on two occasions. I am quite sure that from those delegations we have learned much about the situation of Tibetan refugees in Nepal, many of whom are unable to obtain official documentation. The significance of what happens in Nepal towards Buddhists and other religious minorities is particularly worrying. The situation is ongoing, which troubles me. It is clear that more must be done to ensure that all Tibetan refugees in Nepal and, indeed, in Tibet find access to Government services and assistance, which necessitates documentation.
In Tibet itself, persecution of Buddhists has been going on for some time. The persecution includes general cultural and linguistic oppression, as well as forced imprisonment and other grave human rights violations. According to the US State Department’s 2021 report on international religious freedom in relation to China, Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet receive forced political education and face almost total regulation of their religious activities.
In essence, the Chinese Communist party, as the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) in his intervention reminded us, actively seeks to control the religious affairs of Tibetan Buddhists and people of other faiths, including the Muslim faith, across China. What is happening to the Uyghur Muslims is, in my opinion, nothing short of genocide.
In essence, the Chinese Communist party tries to take control of all religious affairs of Tibetan Buddhists and has been shown to do to other religious groups something similar. There are direct violations of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which we commemorated just last week. It was important that we put down a marker on the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, which we did at many events.
China and the Chinese Communist party hold thousands of prisoners, political and otherwise, in Tibet; many are religious figures. Although there are not many details about prisons, it is known that many political prisoners are held in Tibet. The report to which I have referred suggests that some 1,800 were held in 2021, but it is estimated that the number may be even greater, and we suspect that it is. Free Tibet reports human rights violations in prisons, including torture and the denial of medical treatment and legal assistance. Unfortunately, this follows a predictable pattern of and in China, as can be seen in Xinjiang province, where Uyghur Muslims are detained in nothing short of detention camps. Some millions of people may well be detained.
In addition to its legal requirements under international law commitments, the UK has, I believe, a moral obligation to call out these abuses and to work for change, which is why we seek to have some idea about that from the Minister and her Department. We must, I believe, do more to promote human rights and to relieve the suffering of minority religious and ethnic communities throughout China. Whether someone be a Baha’i, a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu Indian—whatever the religious or ethnic group of someone in China—China will try to deny their right to worship their God as they so wish.
Monitoring the situation is difficult because of China’s strict hold on communication flow in the region. Little to no foreign presence is allowed in Tibet. When allowed, tours are highly choreographed and limited to specific areas. There is very tight control of what takes place, and the opportunity to have an independent and free religious view is restricted.
Cultural oppression goes hand in hand with what the US State Department describes as the sinicisation of Tibetan Buddhism. These efforts are outlined in Chinese policy, which has been implemented in other areas. The efforts include forcing Mandarin instruction, restricting religious celebrations and pilgrimages, and monitoring closely monasteries and other religious sites. The Dalai Lama, the traditional religious leader of one of the major Buddhist schools in the region, lives in exile in India while China has attempted to take control of the religious and political position, including through the kidnapping of a chosen religious leader, the Panchen Lama. Essentially, the Chinese Communist party seeks to control the religious operations of Tibetan Buddhism through close supervision and control of leadership.
What happens to those of a different religious minority or faith in Tibet and across China is very clear. This Sunday, for instance, everyone in this Chamber can go and worship the God that they wish to worship in the church that they wish to go to. They have that freedom, because that is what we do in this country. Our concern is that that freedom is not there in Tibet. Such cultural oppression is immeasurably damaging to affected communities. With the loss of language and religious heritage comes the loss of local identity: culture, traditions, history and the importance of what people do. We must do all we can to prevent that.
It is good to see the Minister in her place. We look to her for a positive response on this issue. It is a big subject, and we have been seeking a debate for some time: we recognise the need for it to be debated in this House, and for the House to make recommendations that can help those of a Buddhist faith in Tibet and across the whole of China.
During the recent UN forum on minority issues, the nation of Tibet was raised. The contribution from the International Campaign for Tibet was incredibly telling:
“Today, Tibetans face discrimination in all aspects of their lives, including employment, housing, and travel. Unlike their Han Chinese counterparts, they often experience obstacles in obtaining passports and their freedom of movement is severely impeded. Employment opportunities for Tibetans often provide substandard salaries.”
Truly, to be a Buddhist in Tibet—indeed, to be a Tibetan in Tibet—is to be a second-class citizen in one’s own country.
“In recent years, the Tibetan language has also been significantly marginalized – including via a vast boarding school system that separates Tibetan children from their families and enforces Chinese-language curriculum.”
We speak the language of our country here, but if we were Tibetans in Tibet, we could not speak our own language; we could only speak Chinese. That underlines the importance of the issue.
The statement continues:
“Tibetans are increasingly unable to study in their mother tongue, which places them at an educational and economic disadvantage when competing with Han Chinese for career opportunities.”
They do not have the same opportunities when it comes to jobs, health or education.
“This marginalization of Tibetans in the labor market is further compounded by a Han centric development model that exploits Tibet’s natural resources but excludes local Tibetans from input and benefits.”
The Chinese come in, take total control and then bleed Tibet of resources.
“In particular, we are concerned by the forced resettlement of up to 2 million Tibetan nomads, farmers and rural residents.”
The significant number of Tibetans who have been resettled tells us what has been happening in Tibet for some time.
“Tibetans are also vastly underrepresented in leadership positions in party, government, and military, on both provincial and local levels.
It should be noted that the absence of an independent judicial system and lack of access to justice for Tibetans, and overall, the implementation of elements of totalitarian rule by the Chinese authorities, have led to a pervasive climate of fear that precludes the assumption of free, prior and informed consent given by those affected by state measures.”
That gives hon. Members an idea of the control and suppression of individual liberty, freedom and rights. It tells us what has happened to their human rights, including the right to worship in the way they wish. I hope that this part of my speech has outlined the case clearly.
The gravity of the situation is clear. I had a look at a poster entitled “Tibet in 2023”. It went month by month, outlining the difficulties each month, and unfortunately the months did not get better. In January, it illustrated the arrest of two Tibetans, Tatse and Dhonkho—I hope my pronunciation is correct, or even partially correct. In February, a new cyber-security law was put in place for surveillance and censorship, and there were increased restrictions and phone inspections during the Tibet Losar celebrations. In other words, everything that happens in Tibet is monitored. Everything that Tibetans and Buddhists want to do is restricted. A person cannot even have a cup of tea or breathe their last breath without it being monitored.
Month by month, beatings take place. Rights are eradicated, from censorship to ensuring that university entrance exams be carried out only in Chinese. It goes on and on. That poster represents the tip of the iceberg; it explains just 12 months in which different things were happening. The latest news came out yesterday, when my speech was being written. It was about the arrest of four Tibetans who were involved in stone-carving Buddhist mantras. Really? It was for their faith. Where is the threat in that? Does anybody honestly believe that that is right? It is not, and this debate illustrates that.
I have been clear that this House needs to take greater steps to defend religious freedom and to engage with the Chinese. Sometimes that is frustrating in itself, as they do not seem to want to engage. The Chinese are the masters of propaganda and censorship, but this House will not be silenced. The debate has given us the opportunity to express that, and I call on the Minister and the Government to be the strong voice that we are calling for.
A number of asks have been forwarded to me. I have given them to the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), and I ask the Minister how we can help to accomplish them. The first is to protect the right of the Tibetan people and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to follow their religious tradition in the selection of the 15th Dalai Lama. It is really not too much to ask. It is one of the basic rights that Buddhists seek.
The second ask is to free the Panchen Lama, who has been in detention for some time. The third is to release all Tibetan prisoners of conscience; the majority are from monastic communities, which illustrates exactly why it is important. The fourth is the freedom to practise religious traditions without fear of state persecution; when the state tries to control the very life a person leads, that has to be changed. The fifth is the freedom to learn the Tibetan language—the language that Tibetans love and that they want to use to express themselves. That holds the key to accessing the complete Buddhist canons of the Kangyur and the Tengyur.
The situation for freedom of religious belief in Tibet is grave. The nigh-on total governmental control over religious institutions and the attempts to suppress language and material culture are leading to clear violations of human rights. In these debates, I often say that human rights and freedom from religious persecution are like crossed fingers. They are not separate; they are the same. That is the truth: if somebody is denied their right to worship their God in the way they wish, they are denied their human rights. One follows the other.
I look forward to hearing the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, and to the Minister’s response. We seek to address these violations from our positions in Westminster Hall and the House of Commons Chamber. Let us be a voice for the voiceless in Tibet, and let that voice be heard loud and clear so that Tibetans and Buddhists have the freedom and the right to worship their God as they wish.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing it. He is always in his place, but it is good to see him leading a debate rather than being one of the last to speak and having to talk at breakneck speed because he has only three minutes to get his words in. He talked about his membership of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief; I am also a member of that group, which does excellent work.
I am also an officer of the all-party group for Tibet, which is what brings me here today. It is a very active group: the officers speak quite frequently in the Chamber and ask questions of the Government. In the past year, we have welcomed Sikyong Penpa Tsering, the political leader, to Parliament; we knew his predecessor very well. As the hon. Member for Strangford did, I apologise for my pronunciation: I trust that Hansard will read my notes and will get it right on paper, even if what I am saying bears very little relation to how it is actually pronounced.
We also met Tibetan activist Dr Gyal Lo to talk about Tibetan children being placed in Chinese-style colonial boarding schools, a matter to which the hon. Member for Strangford referred. Several years ago, we made a trip to the Tibetan Parliament in exile in Dharamshala, which was eye-opening. It gave us a chance to speak to so many people who had been displaced from Tibet. We are not allowed to visit Tibet, although we have tried a number of times. I have also been fortunate enough to go to Nepal a couple of times and meet Tibetan people in exile there.
Since my last speech on Tibet in 2020, I would have hoped to see at least some humanitarian improvements in the region, but sadly not. Instead, China has continued to act with impunity, denying the most fundamental human rights to people in Tibet, and has not ceased its vigorous extermination of the Tibetan identity. I will echo the recent statement made by the Sikyong in Dharamshala, the headquarters of the Tibetan Government in exile. His speech was given to a group of Tibetans at the temple there—I am not even going to try to pronounce it—to mark Human Rights Day and the anniversary of the Dalai Lama being awarded the Nobel peace prize. He said that the Chinese Communist party was
“forging a strong sense of the Chinese nation as one single community, promoting the Chinese language, the Sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism”
and that
“such infliction of suffering and oppression on the Tibetan people by the Chinese Communist Party authorities is unparalleled and unprecedented.”
It is true that Chinese control in Tibet reaches far beyond what even most would expect. In August this year, a yoghurt festival was met with a police crackdown. Sho Dun, the Tibetan yoghurt festival, is not a one-off; it is an important cultural event, but entirely harmless. It typically includes traditional performances, a feast involving yoghurt, and the unveiling of a large portrait of the Buddha. This year, there was a decidedly different atmosphere, with a heavy Chinese police presence, prohibitions on engagement in religious and public gatherings, and inspection booths to confirm the identities of participants and devotees. That is just one example of the pernicious oppression of the Tibetan people. They cannot even carry out expressions of their cultural identity without the Chinese seeking to stop them.
Over the past decade, Tibetan Buddhism has been seen as a threat to the occupying Chinese state. It has been tightly regulated, with Chinese officials closely monitoring and controlling religious activity at monasteries and nunneries. Religious festivals have been banned more frequently, and Government employees, teachers and students have been barred from participating in religious activities.
Aside from religion, Chinese control of education and the workforce has been extensive and overreaching. Tibetan schools have been closed and the Chinese Government have been accused of trying to forcibly assimilate over 1 million Tibetan children through state-run boarding schools, in an attempt to eliminate Tibet’s distinctive linguistic, cultural and religious traditions. All those things go together. It is not just about the suppression of religious views; it is part and parcel of their whole cultural identity, too.
In April, a group of independent experts within the United Nations human rights system “expressed concern” over China’s alleged practice of having Tibetans “transferred” from their traditional rural lives to low-skilled, low-paid employment since 2015. Although the programme is described as voluntary, experts have said that in practice, participants are being coerced.
As I always do when I speak about Tibet, I will also raise the environmental significance of instability in the region. The Tibetan plateau in the Himalayas is known as the third pole, as home to the largest ice storage outside the north and south poles. As a direct result of global warming, permafrost, the permanently frozen layer on or under the Earth’s surface, is thawing, with potentially devastating consequences for the invaluable water supply that flows into neighbouring superpowers China and India. The Mekong, Yangtze, Ganges and Indus rivers all have their source in Tibet. Some 1.6 billion people are supported by those rivers. If the third pole continues to melt at the same rate, the effects will be felt around the world: whole communities destroyed, an unprecedented refugee crisis and the potential for Indo-Chinese relations to turn increasingly sour with an arms race for resources.
I got back from COP28 on Monday. Events there this week have underlined just how difficult it is to facilitate global action on climate change. The 1.5° target is increasingly in doubt. When the Tibetan people cannot even defend their own environment, cannot speak up for themselves and are having to rely on a hostile force —the Chinese Government—to speak for them, the possibility of their concerns being recognised is even less than it would be for many climate-vulnerable places trying to speak up. We have to consider not just the terrible human rights record of the CCP in Tibet, but the environmental impact of what it is doing.
I remember challenging the Government of the current Foreign Secretary about the UK’s relationship with China back in 2013, when he was Prime Minister. There was quite a bit of fanfare at the time because during the coalition years, the then Business Secretary Vince Cable and the then Foreign Secretary William Hague launched a business and human rights action plan that was supposed to mean that the two things were not separate and that when we were doing business with countries like China, human rights always had to be on the agenda.
In theory, it was a really good move. However, at around that time a Trade Minister in the other place came to the all-party parliamentary China group. I asked him about human rights, but he just said, “That’s nothing to do with me. That’s Foreign Office. I’m just there to do business deals for China,” so it was not working as well in practice as it could have. Of course we want to trade with China—it is incredibly important —but we have to use that trade relationship to exert leverage, because that is the only way we can do so. I will finish by asking the Minister: is that happening? What representations are we making to China, not just about Tibet and the plight of the Buddhists there, but about the Uyghur Muslims, the Falun Gong and the people of Hong Kong? Is that happening across Government, not just in the Foreign Office?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and, of course, my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for calling this debate and for his dedication to speaking out for those who have no voice and are oppressed, in particular because of their religion or belief. I have the privilege of being the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. However, I will say for the record that I am speaking today in my role as a parliamentarian. I also thank the duty Minister for coming to the debate. I welcome her and look forward to her remarks.
It is a privilege on occasion to have a little more time than one normally has to speak about an issue. If I may, I will first go back to a report produced by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission when I was the chair in 2016, titled “The Darkest Hour”. It was about the crackdown on human rights in China from 2013-16. There is a chapter on Tibet that quotes from submissions to us:
“Since the Chinese invasion in 1949, an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been raped, tortured and murdered, thousands imprisoned and over 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries destroyed”.
That was according to the submission from Tibet Post International, which also said:
“Every aspect of Tibetan life is under siege and Tibetans have even fewer civil and political rights than Chinese people also ruled by the Communist Party…The regime enforces its control over every aspect through the threat and use of arbitrary punishments, at times including severe violence.”
The Tibet Society submitted to us:
“Tibetans charged with political crimes are often tried in secret, not allowed independent legal representation and evidence against them is extracted by torture”.
Free Tibet submitted:
“a number of political prisoners escaped from Tibet between 2013 and 2016 and provided testimonies about their treatment in prison in the years immediately before 2013, including beatings by police and other security services during interrogation sessions, mock executions, receiving electric shocks during interrogations and being locked in cells that were pitch black or so small that they could not move…several… reported being shackled to a device known as an iron chair, which forces the detainee to bear their entire weight on their wrists and legs. They would be hung from this chair for periods of up to four or five hours at a time, sometimes accompanied by electric shocks and intervals when they are removed from the chair and beaten”.
That was in 2016. In 2020, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission produced a further report. It was quite difficult to find a title for the report, because we had already called the previous report “The Darkest Moment”. We therefore had to call this one “The Darkness Deepens: The Crackdown on Human Rights in China from 2016-2020”. In summary, regarding Tibet, we noted that:
“Repression in Tibet has intensified…Torture and ill-treatment are widespread and continue with impunity…Images of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan flag are banned…‘There are more foreign journalists in North Korea that Tibet’, according to Tibet Post International…Reporters Without Borders listed Tibet 176 out of 180 in its Press Freedom Index…Freedom House lists Tibet as among the worst in the world, with the lowest score for civil and political rights…Restrictions on the use of Tibetan language create discrimination”
and
“Thousands of homes…destroyed in the Buddhist communities of Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar”.
I will give a bit more detail about those examples. There was destruction of homes and forced removal of people from several areas on a mass scale, in the two places that I just mentioned, for example. Free Tibet and Tibet Watch indicated that the removal of communities in Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar had been “drastically escalated” in the past four years. In the four years to 2020, 4,828 residents were removed from Larung Gar, 4,725 buildings were demolished and those
“who were removed were required to sign documents stating that they would not return”.
Some were driven many miles away—some even 1,700 km away. In this report, the Conservative Human Rights Commission concluded with the warning:
“As international attention increasingly focuses on the atrocity crimes against the Uyghurs”
and
“the destruction of freedoms and autonomy in Hong Kong…there is a danger that Tibet could get forgotten…it is vital that this does not happen, and that the egregious human rights violations in Tibet receive the attention they deserve”.
That warning was given in 2020, and, sadly, those words were all too prescient, because the atrocities that have been meted out in Tibet have not received the attention they deserve. While an increasingly and rightly intense international spotlight—including from the UK—has been focused on the plight of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, it has not been focused on Tibet with the intensity with which it should have been. That includes by us in the UK.
I know that the duty Minister will respond in a number of ways and will read out that we are concerned about human rights violations in Tibet, including the restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and on freedom of assembly or association, as well as reports of forced labour. Speaking as a parliamentarian, however, I say that the words we are using simply do not express enough concern.
The Minister will no doubt comment that in June 2022 the UK and 46 other countries made a joint statement at the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Tibet, and called on the Chinese authorities to abide by their human rights obligations. I have that statement in front of me—just one line refers to Tibet, and even that does not do so exclusively. The exact words are:
“We also continue to be gravely concerned about the deterioration of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong and the human rights situation in Tibet.”
The Minister may also refer to the fact that in September 2023 the UK raised a specific issue of the boarding schools—that have been referred to by other hon. Members—in a national statement at the UN’s 54th Human Rights Council. Again, I have that statement here, and again, Tibet is mentioned in just one line of a much longer statement referring to a number of other countries. Once again, even in that line Tibet is not referred to exclusively. It reads:
“Systematic violations persist in Xinjiang and Tibet, where the UN reports a million Tibetan children have been separated from their families to assimilate them into Han culture.”
There are hardly words to describe what is happening. The fact, as reported by the UN—an authoritative source with experts who have looked into this—that around a million Tibetan children are being removed from their families to be compulsorily re-educated. I have heard that that involves children as young as two years old; we are speaking of very young children here in many cases. The UN experts indicated that that points to
“the vast majority of Tibetan children”
so we are talking about a generation losing their familiarity with their native language and the ability to communicate easily with their parents. I have heard that those children might be allowed back home for a short time after, say, three months. They then find that they cannot understand what their parents are saying—they have lost the ability to communicate. That contributes to the erosion of the identity of those children of the Tibetan people, and is contrary to their educational, linguistic, cultural, and other minority rights, freedom of religion or belief, and to the prohibition of discrimination.
In fact, the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide—there is no stronger crime—states:
“Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”
is genocide when committed
“with intent to destroy…a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
We need to use much stronger words when we are speaking about such issues. I know that might not always be possible in formal UN statements, but there is nothing to stop us speaking about them outside that environment in a way that reflects the absolute misery that these children must be suffering.
The Minister may also refer to the UK co-ordinating with partners to draw international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet—most recently in the November 2023 G7 statement. I also have that statement in front of me and my staff have done a search for “Tibet”. It is several pages long, ranging across the world with whole paragraphs covering concerns relating to individual countries. There is half a line on Tibet—again, not exclusively. It reads:
“We also remain concerned about the human rights situation in…Xinjiang and Tibet.”
Meanwhile, the abuse in Tibet continues. The language being used to condemn it is wholly inadequate. Will the Minister please review how we refer to what is happening in Tibet?
We need to speak out more strongly, because words do matter. Only yesterday, Ben Rogers, a long-time authority on this region, and indeed, the vice-chair of the Conservative party’s human rights commission when I was chair, spoke on this issue. He was largely responsible for the research, drafting and production of the reports I have referred to, and he said that China shows consistently that it does take note of international criticism, and that pressure, public statements, and where necessary, sanctions, are important. What more will our Government do to call out those concerns?
We have just commemorated the 75th anniversary of the genocide convention, sagely saying, “Never again”, but it is happening again for the Tibetans. Their centuries-old ethno-national identity, religion and cultural heritage are seen by the Chinese Communist party as disloyalty and a threat to the state, so they are being systematically and comprehensively erased.
Why and how? Because the decades-long occupation of Tibet has happened with inadequate protest from the world and while the Chinese have refined their tactics for suppressing an entire people. As Nury Turkel, commissioner for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, says chillingly:
“It became efficient at eradicating culture and independence while evoking very little protest from the world.”
I recommend Nury Turkel’s excellent and well-informed book, “No Escape”. Chen Quanguo honed the oppressive techniques now being used in Xinjiang in Tibet, with far too little outcry from the world.
Hitler said:
“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
The world looked away, and Hitler then invaded Poland and began his genocide of the Jewish people, allowing authoritarians to keep persecuting, and the world looked away. The world is now too often doing the same with Tibet, as China brushes aside and away the heritage, culture and identity of Tibetans, only now using facilities that were unheard of only a generation ago: digital dictatorship, technology for mass surveillance, artificial intelligence, and spying, even on children, using electronic devices.
I will refer now to the work of the religious and cultural heritage working group of the International Religious Freedom of Belief Alliance, which I had the privilege to chair until I handed the baton over just yesterday to the ambassador from the Czech Republic, Robert Řehák, who will take over as chair for 2024. That working group on religious and cultural heritage has been co-led by my deputy special envoy, David Burrows, and he took the opportunity at the recent ministerial meeting on freedom of religion or belief in Prague just two weeks ago to speak of his concerns about the weaponisation of the Tibetans’ cultural heritage by the Chinese. He explained that the Chinese authorities are not only seeking to extinguish the Tibetans’ own cultural traditions; by cynically using international systems to register themselves as the custodians of Tibetan culture, they are asserting their ownership of it. Through that process, they are making Tibet more aligned to Chinese Han culture.
That is done through policies such as conservation registrations and techniques, for example through the UNESCO system that facilitates registration of cultural and religious assets, and through the registration of cultural expressions under the World Intellectual Property Organisation. This is something that we should be alert to and aware of. Tibetan religious cultural heritage is being weaponised by the Chinese authorities to reimagine and redefine Tibet’s status as a culture, at the very same time that China is challenging Tibet’s right to independence.
In the case of Tibet, there is a pressing urgency to recognise that it will be increasingly hard to defend the freedom of religion or belief for its people, who are threatened by cultural genocide and, in the case of the children who I have referred to, by actual genocide. Those are compelling words, but more action is needed to address this issue.
I want to close by referring to a statement that my successor as chair of the international alliance, Ambassador Robert Řehák from the Czech Republic, will shortly be producing. It was discussed yesterday at our monthly plenary. There are now 42 countries in our alliance, and each month we select an individual religious prisoner of conscience to champion. Our December prisoner of conscience is the 11th Panchen Lama. I cannot think of a worthier, more capable and committed successor than Ambassador Řehák. He will say:
“As the Chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, I express my grave concern for the ongoing enforced disappearance of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama, whose whereabouts and well-being in the People’s Republic of China…have been unknown for nearly 30 years.
PRC authorities abducted Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in 1995 when he was six years old and just days after His Holiness the Dalai Lama recognized him as the 11th Panchen Lama. In response, the PRC installed its own Panchen Lama and continues attempts to compel Tibetan Buddhists to pledge allegiance to the government-selected individual.
I am concerned that PRC authorities have denied Gedhun Choekyi Nyima a lifetime of being able to freely practice his faith in a manner of his choosing. Further, I find the lack of independent access to his whereabouts, the seeming restrictions on his freedom of movement, and the limited information about him spanning nearly three decades highly troubling.
Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is one among many Tibetans whom PRC authorities have silenced or oppressed for expressions of their beliefs, culture, language, and traditions. This includes detaining Tibetans for possessing images of the Dalai Lama, such as Go Sherab Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist monk currently sentenced to 10 years in prison for his peaceful advocacy and whom authorities previously detained for reportedly possessing and displaying a portrait of the Dalai Lama.
The PRC’s cultural erasure throughout Tibet, including efforts to ‘Sinicize’ Tibetan Buddhism and interfere in the selection process of Tibetan Buddhist lamas, including the Dalai Lama, are alarmingly widespread. Earlier this year, several UN experts expressed concern about credible reports that PRC authorities have coerced approximately 1 million Tibetan children in what they characterized as a ‘mandatory large-scale programme intended to assimilate Tibetans into majority Han culture, contrary to the international human rights standards.’ Separating a generation of Tibetan youth from their heritage will do untold damage to their ability to shape and preserve their identity.
I urge the PRC to cease all human rights abuses against Tibetans, including by accounting for the whereabouts and well-being of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima; ending the coercion of Tibetan children into government-run boarding schools; upholding freedom of religion or belief for all; and abandoning policies and practices aimed at erasing Tibet’s rich cultural, religious, and linguistic identity.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to briefly put on the record my concern about the discourtesy of the Minister turning up late to today’s debate on such an important subject. There are people in the Public Gallery who wanted her to hear every single word of this important debate. I cannot help but notice that there is not a Scottish National party spokesperson either, so there is a bit of a sense of disarray today. I am not sure that you can do anything about that, Ms Vaz, but I hope things can be improved for next time.
The all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief is one of the most active in Parliament, and the two most active members of it are here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate, and on laying out his concerns in such clear terms. On a number of occasions, he has mentioned other issues associated with freedom of religion or belief that concern him, including the impact of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the treatment of Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China. That concern was recently highlighted in an excellent piece in the Financial Times outlining new satellite evidence of the destruction of mosques in the Xinjiang region. The hon Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) laid out details of the mass displacement of people in the Tibetan region, which is worrying, and talked about more than 1 million children being involved. Clearly, a programme of sinicisation is going on, in which individuals are not permitted to speak in their native tongue, which will, of course, cause a great barrier between children and their parents. It is worrying that 1 million children could be moved into dormitory-style accommodation, from as young as two, as she said.
In the past decade, we have seen video evidence of the destruction of Buddhist temples. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted the repression that nuns and monks experience daily. He also emphasised under-representation in leadership positions in the PRC; the restrictions and the increasing state-sponsored surveillance; and cultural events that have been stopped by the Chinese Government. As the hon. Member for Congleton emphasised, China is ranked 176th worst for journalism and freedom of speech. In parenthesis, I wonder whether the House would mind my mentioning the other obvious freedom of speech issue: Jimmy Lai, who is in prison at the moment. He used to be the Apple Daily owner and publicist. I am sure the Minister will comment on that, because I am aware that the Foreign Secretary met Sebastien Lai, Jimmy’s son, just this week, and I am sure she would not mind doing a mini-detour in her wind-up to update the House on that meeting.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that up. I tabled early-day motion 213 just yesterday on the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai. I urge all Members to note it. They might wish to sign it to raise awareness of Jimmy and how he is being suppressed. He has been in jail for some time, and any thoughts of his getting out are remote.
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is relentless in highlighting social injustice and, in this case, the lack of freedom of speech for Jimmy Lai and others; we know that similar things are going on in Tibet. However, as the three main speakers in this debate mentioned, because of the difficulty in monitoring what is happening in Tibet, we do not hear as much as we should from journalists there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an extremely important point about the climate and the vulnerable nature of Tibet. Having hot-footed her way back from COP28, she has given us her update on the environmental concerns about that fragile part of our beautiful planet, where third pole ice storage and permafrost is thawing, with dreadful consequences for the river system. We know that a lack of water can cause long-term problems, including social ones, and she has made an important point. She also highlights the potential for Indo-Chinese relations to sour, and makes the important point that when we speak to leaders from the PRC, we must consider the trade relationship, which is very important to the UK’s economy, but crucially must not leave our values at the door. Will the Minister say when she last raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief in Tibet with her counterpart in the PRC?
The Foreign Secretary is in the other place. What impact does the Minister think his previous business interests have? What is the impact of the clear speeches he was giving in Sri Lanka and other places in which China has an interest? Might that cloud the judgment of Ministers as they speak one to one with counterparts in the People’s Republic of China, or with those who represent the PRC in London? Can she also outline what representations are made to China, during trade talks, on the subject of Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet? We should not have one box for trade and one for human rights; they should be part of the same dialogue. What reassurances can she give concerning the issues raised today?
In conclusion, we have heard valuable contributions from members of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, who speak out regularly about the lack of freedom for so many to practise their faith abroad. We also heard the cultural and environmental concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has about the Tibetan plateau. On the specifics of how we do our diplomacy, what reassurances can the Minister give me and the House on the important subject of freedom of religion or belief in the People’s Republic of China, specifically as regards Tibetan Buddhists?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I apologise for the delay, Ms Vaz. There may always be a challenge when digital and analogue aspects of parliamentary information do not align. That is something we will work on, but please accept my apologies for being late. To the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has kindly provided me, as always, with a copy of his speech.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
May I clarify for the Minister? The summary agenda sets out the debate time as starting at 3 pm and in the House we go by the summary agenda.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Absolutely; that is why I apologise. My private office will be able to learn from the practicalities of that point.
Kerry McCarthy
I just want to say, Ms Vaz, that there was a bit of confusion because on the website, where it says “What’s on” in Parliament, it said 4 o’clock. People contacted me saying there was a debate at 4 o’clock. I just thought that it would be 3 o’clock and double-checked, because it usually is at 3 o’clock. That needs to be clarified in future.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
That has been noted by the very assiduous PPS, who pointed that out to us, and we will take it back.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Thank you, Ms Vaz. Just to say that the hon. Member for Strangford always provides a copy of his speech. That is hugely helpful and means that I know that I did not miss a single one of his words, even though I missed those first few minutes. I thank him, as ever, for sharing his speech. Other colleagues should consider doing that sometimes, as it is a helpful way to absorb and think more thoroughly about the issues being raised.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Of course. As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this incredibly important debate, for his continuing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and for his heartfelt presentation of the tragic Tibetan situation. I also thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.
The Government place huge importance on protecting human rights around the world and on using all our diplomatic tools, alongside other countries, to highlight abuses where we see them. We are paying close attention to the deeply concerning situation in Tibet, where members of the Buddhist faith are enduring systematic violations of their rights. I am glad of the opportunity to reflect on the troubling situation and I will do my best to respond to all the points raised on the subject today.
We believe that long-term stability in Tibet is best achieved through respect for universal human rights and genuine autonomy for Tibet within the Chinese system. However, China is systematically violating Tibetans’ rights, including by restricting their freedom of religion or belief and, as colleagues have set out so starkly, their right to assemble and associate freely. We also have those troubling reports of forced labour.
Tibetans are banned from worshipping the Dalai Lama and there are reports of them being arrested for owning photographs of him, celebrating his birthday or watching videos of his teaching. The candidate identified by the Dalai Lama back in 1995 as the next Panchen Lama, who is a senior figure in Tibetan Buddhism, was forcibly disappeared by the Chinese authorities. Today, the authorities restrict the size of Buddhist monasteries in Tibet and there are multiple reports of their destruction, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
It is Chinese law that all senior religious appointments must be approved by the authorities. The UK views the Dalai Lama as a respected spiritual leader, and as such he has visited the UK on a number of occasions and we will continue to do all that we can to encourage freedoms for religious and cultural expression in Tibet and across China. We view the appointment of the next Dalai Lama as a matter for the relevant religious authorities to decide in line with those freedoms of religion and belief. We continue to engage regularly with international partners and non-governmental organisations to discuss the situation in Tibet and to continue to raise awareness.
Meanwhile, reports continue to document the suppression of Tibetan cultural, linguistic and religious identity. Earlier this year, UN special rapporteurs found that around a million Tibetan children have been separated from their families and placed into Government-run boarding schools with no access to traditional Tibetan learning. Rural schools have been closed and students have been forced to attend schools far from their family homes.
The Chinese authorities use enforced disappearances to silence critics and suppress dissent in Tibet. We are aware of reports of politically motivated detentions and arrests of Tibetans, as well as mistreatment in detention. UN special procedure mandate-holders have written to the Chinese authorities regarding the disappearances of Tibetans. There are estimated to be more than 700 political prisoners held in Tibetan areas and monks in particular are targeted for persecution. Reports continue to document the mass collection of DNA and other biometric data in Tibetan regions.
On forced labour, the Government are aware of UN reporting from April 2023 on allegations of so-called “labour transfer” and “vocational training” programmes in Tibet, which are being used “as a pretext to undermine Tibetan religious, linguistic and cultural identity” and “to monitor and politically indoctrinate Tibetans”.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her response. It has been brought to my attention that China is pushing to erase the name “Tibet”. Can the Minister and the Government assure me that the word Tibet will be continued to be used? The Chinese want to replace it with the Mandarin term “Xinjiang”. We must make it very clear that the word is Tibet—the same as the UK is the UK—and it cannot be changed to anything else. The Government must continue to use the word Tibet when meeting the Chinese at the next universal periodic review.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever. I will take that away. Absolutely we continue to use the name Tibet when describing that region of the world; but I note his point, and if that is a developing narrative we must pay close attention and counter it.
Jim Shannon
That is really important to have on the record. The Minister has been responsive, and we appreciate that. Chinese leaders from the Tibet Autonomous Region are visiting the likes of Nepal, Bhutan and Thailand and seeking to claim the authority of the Dalai Lama and his reincarnation. Very clearly, from a Buddhist point of view, the Government must stand with His Holiness and affirm his total authority over his reincarnation—this is not something that the Chinese Government can give as if they were the Santa Claus of Christmas. Buddhists have control of a Dalai Lama; the Chinese do not.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, and he was generous in his description of that potential further abuse of Buddhists’ freedom of religion.
The special rapporteurs warned that such programmes would lead to “situations of forced labour”, and they have suggested that “hundreds of thousands” of Tibetans have been transferred from work in the rural sector to these new jobs through this process. These amount to systematic human rights violations against Tibetan Buddhists and are part of the Chinese authorities’ efforts to erase the Tibetan identity and to assimilate Tibetans into the majority Han culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton set out in stark clarity the shocking real-life impacts on Tibetans as the authorities try to erase their identity.
This Government are determined to promote and protect human rights, no matter where violations or abuses occur. We have shown time and again that, when allegations are substantiated, we will speak out and hold China to account. We co-ordinate with partners to draw international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet. Recent examples include the 8 November G7 Foreign Ministers statement, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, and our item 4 statement at the UN Human Rights Council in September. In June 2022, the UK and 46 other countries joined in a statement at the UN Human Rights Council expressing deep concern about the human rights situation in Tibet and calling on the Chinese authorities to abide by their human rights obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton expressed the frustration that many feel. Any multilateral statement is invariably less punchy than any single country statement would be.
Fiona Bruce
I accept that there is frustration about the type of words used, but there is also frustration about the proportion, the number of words used—or rather the lack of words used about Tibet.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend sets out her point clearly. As someone who has sat in many a multilateral session—the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned COP, which I led on two years ago—it is often a slow and tortuous process to reach a form of words that as many countries and voices can sign up to as possible. My hon. Friend’s point is well made, however, and we will continue to raise the matter. The past couple of years have been the first time this issue has been in those statements. We will continue to work on expanding them and on persuading with the force of the evidence other countries to accept the realities of what we see, so that they will be willing to be stronger in the multilateral statement that we can put out together. Her point is well made and well heard.
Kerry McCarthy
Our focus today is in part on the religion of people in Tibet. I wonder whether the fact that they are Buddhists, which is very much a peaceful religion, plays against them, because full-scale conflict in Tibet with fighting back would perhaps get more international attention. Sadly, however, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there have been at least 158 self-immolations in Tibet, with another 10 by people in exile. Those are the sheer lengths that they have to go to in order to get international eyes on their plight.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady highlights something important. One of the beauties of this extraordinarily peaceful religion is that it does not cause some of the violence and aggression that one sees in other clashes between religions or beliefs across the world.
The challenge in Tibet is that of access for foreign nationals, including accredited diplomats and journalists, and it remains highly restricted. British diplomats visited Tibetan areas of Sichuan province in June 2023, and we will continue to push for access to Tibet, including for the UN special rapporteurs, which China either has not responded to or indeed has refused. We are consistent in our calls for the necessity of greater access to Tibet for international observers.
On UK policy towards China more broadly, China of course has a significant role to play in almost every global issue. We want to have a strong and constructive relationship. As such, we continue to engage directly with China to create space for those open, constructive, predictable and stable relations that are important in, for example, areas of global challenge such as climate and health. Those are areas that we need and want to work together on, for the good of the whole of mankind.
We will, however, always condemn human rights violations, privately in our meetings with Chinese representatives and in public fora, as we have set out. The UK Government will continue to play a leading role in pressing China to improve its human rights and to get its record to a better place.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that, with the question mark over the Foreign Secretary’s business deals, it is correct for the House to ask whether the business deals or the human rights come first?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The China policy has not changed as the personnel in Government have. The policy remains entirely unchanged, but sadly the world has changed in how China is behaving, in particular through its coercive economic activities across a large area, but also through the increasing human rights violations. I hope that is clearly set out. The new Foreign Secretary is in absolutely the same place and is 100% supportive.
Catherine West
I asked the question because, in recent years and particularly since 2018, when Xi Jinping achieved his core leader status, which is when the internal repression and external aggression increased, the Foreign Secretary made positive speeches regarding the belt and road initiative in Sri Lanka. That is the specific business reference that I was making. The Minister may wish to write to me rather than put it on the record, but it is important, in an open and democratic system, that such things are out in the open.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I would not wish to speak on behalf of the Foreign Secretary about his activities when he was a private citizen. On some level, I think we all support and wish to see the direct success of some of the belt and road initiative. Without a doubt, those investments were in part an attempt by China to take their discovery about their way of investing long term in their own infrastructure, which saw their poverty levels drop dramatically, across the world. But there are other aspects to the initiative and some frustrations: where the impact has not been as well funded or followed through, it has left investees disappointed.
As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green highlights, the challenge remains that there has been a shift in the way the CCP does its business. That now requires us to continue to lead—and, sadly, it requires more international effort—on holding China to account for what are, without a doubt, appalling human rights violations in a number of places, including Xinjiang, which a number of hon. Members referenced. We were the first country to lead a joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN, and our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and brought other countries’ voices with us. In October 2023, the UK led another joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN, calling China out for its human rights violations, and there were a record number of signatories. That relates to my earlier point about the challenge of continuing to build the evidence base and give other countries the chance to understand and see some of the violations for themselves. We will continue to lead that piece of work and bring UK diplomatic leadership across the world.
The hon. Member for Bristol East raised an interesting point. Ministers across Government do raise human rights concerns whenever they have discussions with the CCP or discussions on other Chinese issues. It was very interesting to hear about the policy work that was done in 2013, of which I was not aware. I will dig it out of the system and see whether the framework that we use now, or what was suggested, can ensure that we maximise our impact. It is very much on everyone’s agenda, but we are very comfortable with the fact that, when we talk about engaging with China, there are important economic relationships that we wish to continue to work on and grow. We have businesses that are keen to invest in what is, of course, an enormous market across the world.
To conclude, everyone, everywhere deserves to enjoy fundamental human rights, including the freedom of religion or belief. China should respect those rights in Tibet, in line with its own constitution and the international frameworks to which it is a party. Until it does so, the UK will continue to hold it to account—in public, in private and in concert with our international partners. We will continue to stand up for our values, and to promote and protect human rights in Tibet and around the world. Members’ concerns about the forcefulness of messaging about and criticism of suppression from Chinese authorities are well heard today. We shall continue to press for stronger language and the continued use of sanctions tools to express the disgust and righteous anger that colleagues have set out so eloquently today.
Jim Shannon
I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, starting with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She reminded us of events of which she has personal knowledge from her involvement with the APPG for Tibet. We all know of Tibetans’ culinary expertise, and yoghurt is one of the things that they like. She spoke about a yoghurt event where the Chinese stepped in and tried to close it down; they were trying to take away that cultural identity. She also referred to the picture of Buddha—again, a vicious suppression by the Chinese Communist party. She spoke about the schools being closed, the language being restricted and the removal of some 2 million people from the countryside to the towns.
The hon. Lady also spoke very rightly about environmental issues, which I was not so aware of. I thank the hon. Lady for that. I had some knowledge of the Tibetan plateau, probably from the environmental programmes on TV and so on. It is important not just for Tibet, but for China and India. We hope that it does not become a political football for the future, which unfortunately it might. In an intervention, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) referred to the importance of highlighting the issue not just for those of a Christian faith but those of a Buddhist faith, which is why we have had this debate today.
In the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, we try to speak up for all faiths and those of no faith, which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) does regularly. I thank the hon. Lady. I am very pleased that she is the envoy for our Government. I am also very pleased that she is my friend, and speaks up on all the things that are important in this House. She underlined the issues focused on by the Conservative group for Tibet. She outlined the problems in Tibet as far back as 2013, and the timeline of human rights deterioration in Tibet between 2016 and 2020—and the indoctrination of children as young as two years of age. My goodness me! My youngest grandchild is just over one, and he is a wee dynamo at one year old. Imagine him being taken away for indoctrination and losing all knowledge of his parents.
The hon. Member for Congleton also reminded us that words do matter, and I think she is right. Sometimes we think that they are not enough, and they are not enough sometimes, but it is important that we use them. She referred to cultural, educational and linguistic genocide.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the shadow Minister, reminded us of the removal of people, the destruction of temples and the logistics restrictions; oppression came up each and every time. She also emphasised how important it is, when it comes to making trade deals with any country, and China in particular, that we ingratiate into those trade talks the importance of human rights for people around the world. There must never be a deal that does not take on board all the issues.
The Minister very kindly, as she always does, took our viewpoints on board. I know that, when she has the opportunity to read Hansard and have the discussions with her PPS, all those other things will emerge. The Minister absolutely understands the issue. She referred to the tragic Tibetan situation—issues of freedom of religious belief; the disappearance of Tibetans by the Chinese Communist party; the documentation of oppression with children removed their families; political motivations; forced labour with people being moved from the countryside to the towns.
The Minister also mentioned journalists who have been restricted in what they are able to report. One thing that I believe was clear from the Minister’s statement—I hope others will agree—was that she and her Government are not behind a wall in telling China that these things in Tibet are wrong. We wish to see a bit more zealousness in highlighting these issues at every occasion.
I must thank some of the people in the Gallery today who have taken the time to come along. Today, we are the voice for these people. We are the voice for all those religious minorities that are suppressed and oppressed in Tibet, and Buddhists in particular. We want them all to know that, when it comes to standing up for them and standing alongside them, this House and its Members will not be found wanting.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet.
Written Statements
Government Transparency and Accountability
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Since 2010, the Government have been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the press and the public to hold public bodies to account.
Transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, cutting waste and inefficiency, and ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way. The Government will continue to look at how the range of information published by the Government can be improved and made as useful as possible. The following subject areas include documents and information that the Government are due to publish.
Transparency on Ministers, Special Advisers and Senior Civil Servants
Departments publish details of their Ministers’, special advisers’ and senior civil servants’ meetings, gifts, hospitality and travel on a quarterly basis. To support these publications, the Cabinet Office provides guidance to Departments on how this data should be prepared and released.
As part of the Government response to reports by the Boardman review, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on strengthening ethics and integrity in central Government, and in line with its commitment to transparency, the Cabinet Office will be publishing online, for the first time, a substantial update to this guidance.
The updated guidance will clarify and expand on a number of requirements, such as strengthening meeting purpose descriptions, expanding the number of senior civil servants required to publish details of their meetings and setting a target, for the first time, to publish within 90 days of the end of a given quarter.
The updated guidance will be published on gov.uk, and take effect from January 2024 onwards. Publishing the guidance online is also intended to aid public understanding of this data.
Departments will also be publishing, today, routine data on Ministers’, special advisers’ and senior civil servants’ meetings, gifts, hospitality and travel for the period of July to September 2023. The data covers the returns for the Prime Minister, the Leaders of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the Government Chief Whip, as well as the Cabinet Office.
List of Ministers’ interests
An updated list of Ministers’ interests for all Departments is also being published today by the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ interests.
Freedom of information
The Cabinet Office has published technical guidance which it has issued to freedom of information practitioners across central Government on the approach to be taken when a requestor asks for disclosure in a spreadsheet format. Any disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act needs to comply with the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 by ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to safeguard against inappropriate disclosure of personal data, such as that released inadvertently by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The guidance, which is on gov.uk, is in addition to that given on the “Means of Communication” in the FOI code of practice, and will be revised in due course.
Prompt payment data
Government Departments have a target to pay 90% of the valid and undisputed invoices received from private sector suppliers within five working days and 100% within 30 calendar days. Departments are required to report their performance against these targets on a quarterly basis. In Q1 and Q2 of the 2023-24 financial year, this Department paid 81% and 82% respectively of the valid and undisputed invoices it received from private sector suppliers within five working days and 95% and 93% respectively within 30 calendar days.
There are active measures in place to improve results and in Q3 to date we have seen some improvements. New data will be published on gov.uk next year and I have written to officials in the Department reminding them of the importance of prompt payment especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.
[HCWS138]
VAT Treatment of Fund Management
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I am today publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on the VAT treatment of fund management services that was launched in December 2022 and closed on 3 February 2023.
The consultation set out how the Government intended to achieve the twin aims of: (i) improving policy clarity and certainty for all stakeholders on the application of the VAT exemption for fund management services; and (ii) removing reliance on retained EU law.
The Government have fully considered the consultation responses and the outcomes of additional stakeholder discussions.
The response document sets out that businesses will not be able to rely on direct effect of EU law after 31 December 2023 when the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 comes into effect. The VAT exemption for the management services of those funds listed under items 9 and 10 of group 5 in schedule 9 to the VAT Act 1994 will remain in place. This approach is in line with respondents’ views, and meets the stated aims of providing clarity, certainty and simplicity.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will issue updated guidance to reflect this change in the coming months. The Government will continue engaging with interested businesses.
The Government thank respondents to this consultation for taking the time to share their views.
The consultation response can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/vat-treatment-of-fund-management-consultation.
[HCWS128]
Money Laundering Regulations: Politically Exposed Persons
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
My noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Treasury Minister in the House of Lords, has today made the following written ministerial statement.
Today the Government have laid the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/1371), a statutory instrument to amend the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (“the regulations”) in relation to the treatment of politically exposed persons (PEPs) who are entrusted with prominent public functions by the UK (known as “domestic PEPs”).
The amendment makes clear that under the regulations the starting point for banks and other regulated firms in their treatment of domestic PEPs, or a family member or known close associate of a domestic PEP, must be to treat them as inherently lower risk than non-domestic PEPs. Accordingly, regulated firms must apply a lower level of enhanced due diligence to domestic PEPs compared to non-domestic PEPs, unless other risk factors are present.
The Government are making this change in order to ensure that banks and other regulated firms take a proportionate and risk-based approach to the treatment of domestic PEPs, in line with the Government’s broader approach to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) controls. While the new requirements have featured for some time in Financial Conduct Authority guidance on the treatment of PEPs, legitimate concerns continue to be raised that a number of holders of prominent public positions have encountered problems accessing financial services due to their status as politically exposed persons under the regulations, as have their family members. Often, this takes the form of potentially disproportionate or overly frequent requests for information about personal financial matters and affects both PEPs themselves and family members or close associates. The Government are fully committed to tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and corruption, but they will always work to ensure this is done in a proportionate, risk-based way that avoids undue burdens on law-abiding citizens.
SI 2023/1371 fulfils the Government’s commitment set out in section 77 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (“the Act”) to amend the regulations to make it clear that the starting point for AML/CTF-regulated firms when considering their treatment of domestic PEPs and their relations and close associates should be to treat them as inherently lower-risk than non-domestic PEPs.
Section 78 of the Act also committed the Financial Conduct Authority to conduct, and publish the conclusions of, a review into how financial institutions are following its guidance. This review will consider whether the FCA’s guidance on PEPs remains appropriate, and the FCA will be required to amend its guidance if the review finds it necessary to do so. If the FCA finds that the guidance is no longer appropriate, it will publish draft revised guidance for consultation, taking into account the Treasury’s amendment to the regulations, within the 12-month timeframe given for the review (i.e. by 29 June 2024). Given the strength of concern on this issue, the Government expect that the FCA will prioritise this important review over the coming months.
The Government would like to thank again those who have taken the time to raise these issues, and those who have engaged with the FCA’s review.
[HCWS134]
Land Environment Tactical Communication and Information Systems
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
The land environment tactical communication and information systems (LETacCIS) programme is a capability and business change programme that will deliver the land domain’s deployed digital backbone from formation headquarters to dismounted soldiers through the sustainment, evolution or replacement of CIS and associated applications.
The programme has made significant progress across the key projects which form the core of the “deployed digital ecosystem”:
Project TRINITY, which will deliver a deployable wide area networking “battlespace broadband” capability, is now on contract with BAE Systems (signed August 2023) and is on track to deliver from March 2026.
The multi-mode radio (MMR) project, which will deliver modern radios into the MOD’s tactical networks, providing increased interoperability with key allies, and boost communications capabilities of our deployed forces, began delivering equipment to training schools in October 2022—four months ahead of schedule—and is on track to complete full delivery into service by September 2024.
The land deployable gateway (LDGv2) project is on contract with GDMS (UK) from September 2023 to deliver an improved gateway solution for the land tactical environment, and is on track to begin delivery from September 2025.
The final major project within the ecosystem is the MORPHEUS project, which will deliver an advanced communications system to our troops on the frontline, particularly those operating in the land environment. The project’s aims are to:
Exploit modern technology to deliver a new, more capable baseline capability from which we can more rapidly evolve;
Enable easier and more effective interoperability, both with other UK systems, and with allies;
Lower the training burden on users, through more intuitive interfaces;
Avoid vendor lock-in, and use competition to drive VFM; and
Employ open architectures, to more easily integrate new technologies.
In order to enable an open data architecture approach—thus avoiding any potential for future vendor lock-in—the LETacCIS programme awarded an evolve to open (EvO) transition partner (TP) contract to General Dynamics Mission Systems (UK) in 2017 to deliver a lab tested design in December 2020. However, delivery against this timescale was not met.
We have been open that progress on the MORPHEUS project has fallen short of what was expected and since December 2020 we have been working closely with General Dynamics to agree the best way ahead. The MOD can today confirm that, as a result of these discussions, this contract has now been concluded. While commercial confidentiality precludes me from providing the House with specific details of the arrangements made, the Department can assure it that these arrangements have been verified by both HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office as representing the best value for money approach for the taxpayer. Overall, the MOD has reached a position where the deliverables are sufficient to enable the future of the MORPHEUS project and the next generation of tactical communications, a position reinforced by strong market engagement with suppliers.
In the meantime, the MOD will continue to work with General Dynamics to ensure it delivers the planned update to sustain the in-service Bowman system, ensuring that we continue to meet all our operational requirements. The update, alongside our own development efforts, will deliver new hardware and software, ensuring that troops on the frontline have a secure communications system, enabling them to effectively communicate across the battlespace. While workforce matters are for General Dynamics to comment on, this update will ensure a sustained workload at the Oakdale site for some time to come.
Several valuable lessons have been learned through the evolve to open contract. An internal lessons learned review has taken place, but the MOD has also commissioned the Cabinet Office’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority to conduct an independent review of the MORPHEUS project, with the aim of understanding where the Department can improve in future projects. This independent review will commence next year and a summary of the report will be placed in the Library of the House upon conclusion.
The Department is now proactively reconsidering the requirements that the MORPHEUS project is due to deliver, which we expect to conclude in the spring. This will ensure that UK armed forces have what is required as part of the next generation of tactical communications, recognising the advancement of technologies since the MORPHEUS project was initially conceived.
Following analysis of the requirements, we will engage with industry on a renewed basis, incorporating the lessons learned from this procurement, and move towards delivering the next generation of tactical communications systems, for the benefit of the whole of defence.
[HCWS137]
Advanced British Standard: Consultation
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
In October 2023 we announced our intention to create a new qualification framework: the advanced British standard (ABS). Today, we are announcing a 14-week consultation on this new qualification framework.
There are several key principles underpinning the development of the ABS, including ending the artificial divide between academic and technical study, building on the best of A-levels and T-levels, extending the study of English and maths to all students, increasing the number of hours students spend with a teacher and following the evidence on studying a breadth of subjects. This will bring us closer in line with what other high-performing countries offer their students and support the growth of our economy.
The consultation document sets out more detail on how the ABS will work, but there are substantial questions to be worked through. In particular, my Department is seeking views on:
The aims and purposes of the advanced British standard qualification framework. We are inviting views on proposals on what the ABS is trying to achieve.
How the ABS should be designed to achieve our aims: a model that has the highest aspirations for all. We are inviting views on proposals for what ABS study programmes will look like for different students and at different levels, for example an occupational route that will support students to move straight into work and more hours at level 2 to help students progress. We are also seeking views on how we can best design a system that provides all students with the right programme to achieve their full potential.
How assessment and awarding should be designed. We are seeking initial views on how best to design the assessment, grading and awarding of the ABS so it is clear for students, and gives employers and further/higher education providers the information they need.
How changes will affect 16-to-19 providers and how we ensure we are maximising the benefits for students and the wider system. We are seeking views on the challenges, opportunities and risks presented by the ABS, and on the action needed to ensure the quality of and confidence in existing qualifications while developing the ABS.
This consultation is an important part of the reform process as it is an early opportunity for all those with an interest in the ABS to provide their views. We intend to consider carefully all responses received to inform further policy development, and a White Paper in summer 2024. The consultation on the ABS will be available today on gov.uk and will close on 20 March 2024.
[HCWS127]
Hydrogen Industry
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
In pursuit of our hydrogen ambitions, today I am announcing the 11 electrolytic (or “green”) hydrogen projects that have been successful in the first hydrogen allocation round (HAR1). This announcement has been made alongside the launch of the second hydrogen allocation round (HAR2) and a number of important new policy updates across hydrogen production, transport, storage and use. Together, these announcements set out the steps that the Government are taking to deliver a world-leading hydrogen economy and support high-quality jobs and investment across the UK.
The announcement of the 11 successful HAR1 projects marks the UK as a global leader in hydrogen, representing the largest number of commercial scale electrolytic production projects announced at once anywhere in Europe. We are committing over £2 billion of support to these projects through 15-year contracts, in addition to £91 million in up-front capital co-funding, unlocking substantial investment from industry:
£413 million of private capital will be invested by the projects up front between 2024 and 2026;
Over 700 jobs will be created during construction; and
We anticipate millions to be spent by offtakers, which are those businesses committing to convert their operations to using hydrogen, and buying the hydrogen produced. These include major employers and household names in consumer goods, and businesses such as distilleries and heavy transport hauliers.
HAR1 was the first of our planned annual electrolytic allocation rounds for the hydrogen production business model. The successful projects, which will all be operational by 2026, located across 11 sites in England, Scotland and Wales, represent 125 MW of hydrogen production capacity.
Low-carbon hydrogen will be crucial for ensuring energy security and achieving net zero. In the process it could help to transform our industrial heartlands, unlocking over 12,000 jobs and up to £11 billion in private investment by 2030 across the UK. It will be needed to decarbonise vital UK industrial sectors and heavy transport, as well as supporting resilience and security for our power system.
In addition to announcing the winners of HAR1, I am delighted to have launched the second hydrogen allocation round—HAR2—today, through which we will aim to award contracts of up to 875 MW, subject to affordability and value for money. Together HAR1 and HAR2 aim to deliver our ambition of having up to 1 GW of new electrolytic hydrogen production capacity being in operation or construction by 2025.
Today we have also published a hydrogen production delivery road map, which sets out how we expect the UK hydrogen production landscape to evolve to 2035. This road map contains further details on our proposal for annual hydrogen allocation rounds from 2025 to 2030 and sets out our ambitions to allocate up to 1.5 GW across HARs 3 and 4, subject to affordability and value for money. This clarity on future allocation rounds is what industry has been calling for and will help to bring forward long-term investment into low-carbon hydrogen production projects in the UK.
Hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure will be essential to the development of the UK hydrogen economy, providing the link between production and demand. As such, today the Government have also published a hydrogen transport and storage networks pathway, which sets out the next steps in our vision for the strategic development of UK hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure. Alongside this, I am setting out our intentions for the first allocation rounds of the hydrogen transport and storage business models, including for these rounds to open in 2024 and to allocate support for up to two storage projects at scale and associated regional pipeline infrastructure. This is a major step forward in the delivery of the critical hydrogen infrastructure we will need and builds on the legislative powers created in the Energy Act 2023.
I am also announcing that following consultation, and based on current evidence, the Government see potential strategic and economic value in supporting the blending of up to 20% hydrogen by volume into the GB gas distribution networks, in certain circumstances. Blending has the potential to stimulate an early hydrogen market through de-risking hydrogen production projects and reducing costs at a project level, as an offtaker of last resort, and at a system level.
The “Powering Up Britain: Energy Security Plan” announced our intention to consult in 2023 on the need and potential design options for market intervention to support hydrogen to power. I can today announce that this consultation has been published and is open for responses. The consultation outlines our minded-to position on intervention design of a potential hydrogen-to-power business model, and proposals to enable hydrogen-to-power plants to compete in the capacity market as soon as practical.
The proposed hydrogen village trial in Redcar cannot go ahead as designed, as the main source of hydrogen supply will not be available. As such, the Government are not in a position to provide support for the trial. The Government still plan to take a decision in 2026 on whether, and if so how, hydrogen will contribute to heating decarbonisation. We will assess evidence from the neighbourhood trial in Fife, as well as similar schemes across Europe, to take this decision.
Since publication of the UK hydrogen strategy in August 2021, the Government have published regular updates to the market to deliver clarity on the direction of hydrogen policy across the value chain, so that the Government, industry and investors can work together most effectively to build a world-leading hydrogen economy. Our hydrogen strategy delivery update sets out Government policy and funding progress so far and updates the UK hydrogen economy road map for the next decade to provide a detailed timeline on the steps that the Government are taking to deliver its vision.
[HCWS124]
Fishing Negotiations 2024: UK-EU-Norway
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I would like to make the following statement.
Conclusion of annual negotiations for 2024 fishing opportunities
The UK has reached agreement with the EU and Norway on catch opportunities for 2024 through the UK-EU-Norway trilateral and UK-EU bilateral negotiations. Across these negotiations, the UK secured agreement on over 80 total allowable catches (TACs), providing access to £700 million of UK fishing opportunities. Alongside the coastal state negotiations on stocks including mackerel, this brings the total UK fishing opportunities secured in 2024 to 750,000 tonnes, worth an estimated £970 million based on historic landing prices. This is an increase from £900 million in 2023 and an increase in total tonnes of fishing opportunities.
Further, since leaving the EU, the UK has a larger share of many of the TACs set at these negotiations. It is estimated that the UK might have received around 630,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities if we were still an EU member state, in comparison to the 750,000 tonnes actually received. That is an estimated increase of 120,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for the UK fleet in 2024. The UK’s shares in these stocks will continue to increase until the end of the 5½ year adjustment period.
In these negotiations the UK Government worked closely with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive to secure outcomes to improve the sustainable management of our fish stocks in support of the whole of the UK fishing industry.
UK-EU agreement
The UK has secured fishing opportunities of 130,000 tonnes, worth around £340 million based on historic landing prices, through agreement on around 70 TACs as well as agreement on arrangements for non-quota stocks. This is a decrease of around 10,000 tonnes compared to 2023, largely driven by declining scientific advice on sustainable catch levels in the Celtic and Irish Seas.
An initial estimate suggests that approximately 35% of UK-EU TACs were set to align with scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). This is a slight increase on last year. The Government will publish early in 2024 a full assessment of the number of TACs set consistent with ICES advice across all annual negotiations.
For non-quota stocks (NQS), the UK and the EU agreed a roll-over of access arrangements for 2024 to ensure continued access to fish NQS in EU waters. UK fleet landings for these stocks are historically worth around £30 million a year. We also agreed to a roll-over of management measures for seabass and access arrangements for spurdog in the North Sea and albacore tuna.
Scientific advice for 2024 illustrates the declining health or vulnerable state of some stocks, particularly in the Celtic and Irish Seas. The UK and EU therefore made additional commitments to work together through the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to address the management challenges of certain stocks. This includes reviewing the effectiveness of measures to protect spurdog, and continuing to progress work on technical measures to support the recovery of depleted stocks in the Celtic and Irish Seas. For pollack in ICES areas 6 and 7, the UK and EU committed to work through the SCF to improve our understanding of the stock and the recreational fishery with a view to the introduction of limits where appropriate and where these are likely to be effective in reducing pressure on the stock.
UK-EU-Norway trilateral negotiations
The UK has also reached agreement with Norway and the EU on catch limits for 2024 for six jointly managed North Sea stocks, giving the UK fishing fleet access to opportunities worth around £360 million, based on historic landing prices.
The parties agreed increased TACs for the six stocks. Five of the six stocks were set in line with, or below, independent scientific advice from ICES. This included an approach to northern shelf cod that reflects the new status of the stock following new advice from ICES, and a modest increase in the TAC of 15% reflecting the increasing stock biomass. For two stocks, North Sea haddock and whiting, the parties agreed to take a more precautionary approach than the scientific advice given the extent of the advised potential increases.
The parties renewed their commitment to deliver long-term management plans for their shared stocks and have agreed to continue development in 2024 of more effective management measures for the North Sea herring fishery, focusing on stability for industry and sustainability. The parties also agreed to their shared ambition to move northern shelf anglerfish (monkfish) to a trilaterally-managed stock, and agreed to continue building on the work undertaken in 2023 on monitoring, control and surveillance of their shared stocks.
Multilateral ‘coastal states’ negotiations
The UK has agreed TACs at the level advised by ICES on the three widely distributed stocks we share with other coastal states in the North-East Atlantic: mackerel, blue whiting and Norwegian spring spawning/atlanto/Scandian herring. The opportunities will be worth up to £270 million to the UK fleet in 2024.
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)
The UK has continued to support the sustainable management of widely distributed and highly migratory stocks via Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) in which it is a member. RFMO negotiations this year have provided notable sustainability gains, as well as around 2,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2024, including in north Atlantic albacore tuna, eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna and north-west Atlantic cod.
UK-Norway and UK-Faroe Islands bilateral negotiations
Bilateral negotiations between the UK and Norway and the UK and the Faroe Islands on access arrangements and exchanges of fishing opportunities are ongoing.
[HCWS136]
Fisheries Management Plans
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Today, as required by the Fisheries Act 2020, the joint fisheries statement, and the England environmental improvement plan 2023, the UK Government are publishing the first five fisheries management plans (FMPs). These make full use of our new post-Brexit freedoms, to establish world-class fisheries management.
FMPs set out policies to maintain or increase stocks to sustainable levels (or contribute to doing so). The plans cover king scallop, crab and lobster, whelk, bass and channel demersal non-quota species. The plans for scallop and bass have been developed jointly with the Welsh Government and apply to English and Welsh waters.
These plans include a combination of short-term actions that will be taken to protect stocks such as increasing minimum sizes, and longer-term approaches, such as proposals to manage levels of fishing. They use the latest scientific evidence, and we have worked closely with the commercial and recreational fishing sectors to ensure these plans support coastal communities. Where appropriate the plans also propose actions to reduce the effects of fishing on the marine environment, such as the effects of trawling on the seabed.
Following closure of a public consultation on the draft FMPs in October, we analysed the responses and have made a number of changes to the plans, including bringing forward plans for sustainable fishing levels in key fisheries, removing a proposal for a minimum conservation reference size for cuttlefish, streamlining regulations and addressing environmental risks.
As well as continuing to develop the next tranches of FMPs, our focus will now turn towards delivering and implementing the policies and measures within the FMPs, ensuring that we have a prosperous fishing sector for future generations while safeguarding, restoring and enhancing the marine environment on which industry and wider society depends.
Finally, we are publishing the summaries of consultation responses and Government response to the consultations on the fisheries management plans which will also be available on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS130]
Overseas Territories Declaration and Joint Ministerial Council
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The UK and the British overseas territories of Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, and Turks and Caicos Islands have agreed a joint declaration: “A Modern Partnership for a Stronger British Family”. The declaration sets out our united vision for our partnership with the British overseas territories (OTs), fit for the 21st century.
The agreed declaration sets out shared democratic values and respect for human rights which underpin the UK-OT partnership. The UK and OTs committed to: improve transparency and deepen bilateral partnerships; consult OTs on UK primary legislation that impacts them; and support OTs to take on more responsibility where they wish and are able to. Other commitments included: public sector capacity building, seeking improvements to UK financial support frameworks, and speaking with one voice at multilateral fora.
OTs’ elected leaders and representatives welcomed the declaration’s commitments to strengthen the relationship while ensuring that it is responsive to the needs and aspirations of the OTs. OT leaders and representatives also welcomed the commitment set out in the declaration for the UK to seek to develop bilateral compacts with each territory. The compacts will improve the transparency of responsibilities—of the elected Government, Governor and UK Government Departments—and set out mutual expectations to achieve shared priorities and objectives.
The negotiation of the declaration took place during the 11th meeting of the UK-Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council (JMC) on 14 and 15 November 2023. The JMC was attended by elected leaders and representatives from Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Tristan da Cunha and Turks and Caicos Islands. Discussions also covered publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership, on which I will update the House separately. The Foreign Secretary attended the plenary to welcome leaders and representatives from the OTs, and OT leaders also attended a private reception hosted by His Majesty the King.
A copy of the UK-OT declaration will be published on gov.uk, and made available in the Library.
[HCWS125]
Elections Act 2022: Implementation
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
The Government are committed to ensuring that our democracy is secure, fair, modern and transparent. It is vital for the health of our democracy that the United Kingdom has an independent regulator that commands trust across the political spectrum and is fully accountable to Parliament.
That is why the Elections Act 2022 (“the Act”) made provision for a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. Following a period of consultation, the Government are today laying the final draft statement before Parliament for approval. The statement will strengthen the Electoral Commission’s accountability to the UK Parliament while respecting its operational independence.
The statement sets out the strategic and policy priorities of the UK Government and the roles and responsibilities of the Electoral Commission in enabling the UK Government to meet those priorities, including tackling issues such as voter fraud, improving the accessibility of elections, and improving participation. It also contains guidance relating to particular matters in respect of which the Electoral Commission has functions. If approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Electoral Commission will have a duty to have regard to the statement when carrying out its functions.
Given the nature of the Electoral Commission’s work, it is right that the commission remains directly accountable to the UK Parliament via the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission (“the Speaker’s Committee”). The statement strengthens the Electoral Commission’s accountability to Parliament because the Act also gave the Speaker’s Committee new powers to examine the commission’s performance of its duty to have regard to the statement.
The statement has been subject to a statutory consultation and the enhanced parliamentary procedure. The statutory consultation took place between 22 August 2022 and 20 December 2022. In response, the Government made substantive amendments to the draft, including clarifying that the statement must be compatible with the foundational principle of the Electoral Commission’s operational independence. The Government’s response to the consultation and a revised draft statement were then laid before Parliament on 8 June 2023 for a 60-day period to invite representations from parliamentarians. This period ended on 14 September 2023.
The Government have considered carefully the representations received from parliamentarians. These representations reiterated views articulated during the statutory consultation, particularly concerning the impact the statement could have on the independence of the Electoral Commission.
After careful consideration, the Government have decided not to make any amendments to the draft statement of June 2023 and will proceed with laying the statement before Parliament unamended (save a few minor stylistic changes). This is because the Government had already made substantive revisions to the statement after the statutory consultation, to provide clarifications and reassurances relating to the operational independence of the Electoral Commission. Given that the representations largely reiterated views articulated during the consultation, the Government’s view is that the remaining objections are matters that cannot be satisfied by amending the statement without compromising significantly its original policy intent.
The Electoral Commission’s legal duty to have regard to the statement does not replace or undermine its other statutory duties, nor does it give the Government powers to direct its decision making. The statement is clear that the commission will remain operationally independent, with electoral commissioners and the commission’s executive leadership remaining responsible for determining the commission’s strategic priorities and how the commission discharges its functions.
Overall, it is the Government’s view that improving the Electoral Commission’s accountability to the UK Parliament will result in greater public confidence in its work.
[HCWS133]
Medical Examiner and Death Certification Reforms
(1 year 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 Government plan to introduce secondary legislation to reform death certification in England and Wales, from April 2024. Under the reforms, all deaths will become legally subject to either a medical examiner’s scrutiny or a coroner’s investigation. Medical examiners are senior medical doctors that independently scrutinise the causes of death. Since 2019, NHS trusts have appointed medical examiners to scrutinise most deaths in acute healthcare settings and some community settings on a non-statutory basis. From April 2024, it will become a requirement that all deaths in any health setting that are not referred to the coroner in the first instance are subject to medical examiner scrutiny.
The changes will mean that families will have greater transparency on the circumstances surrounding the death of a loved one. Medical examiners will always offer a conversation to the bereaved, providing an opportunity for them to raise questions or concerns with a senior doctor not involved in the care of the deceased. This will help deter criminal activity, improve poor practice and ensure the right deaths are referred to coroners for further investigation.
The relevant primary legislation for these reforms was commenced on 1 October 2023 and today the Government are publishing three sets of draft regulations under powers in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that will be laid shortly when parliamentary time allows. These will be published on gov.uk.
The introduction of medical examiners is part of a broader set of reforms to death certification, coronial and registration processes which will allow for the efficient flow of information between doctors, medical examiners, coroners and registrars in the new system. We are working closely with our partners in Government and the health service to ensure that the appropriate operational processes are in place to deliver these changes from April 2024.
[HCWS131]
Provisional Police Grant 2024-25: England and Wales
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today published the provisional police grant report (England and Wales) 2024-25. The report sets out the Home Secretary’s determination for 2024-25 of the aggregate amounts of grants that he proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996. A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Today, the Government have set out the provisional police funding settlement in Parliament for the forthcoming financial year. For 2024-25, overall funding for the policing system will rise by up to £842.9 million when compared to the restated 2023-24 police funding settlement, bringing the total settlement for 2024-25 up to £18.4 billion. Compared with 2019-20, this represents a total settlement increase of up to 30.7% in cash terms. For police and crime commissioners (PCCs), this means an increase of up to £922.2 million when compared to 2023-24 (if PCCs were to choose to take up the precept flexibility), taking total funding for PCCs to £16.4 billion. This funding settlement demonstrates that the Government remain committed to giving policing the resources it needs to keep the public safe.
For 2024-25, this Government are providing forces with an increase in Government grants of £624 million compared to the 2023-24 police funding settlement. This includes an additional £185 million, totalling £515 million when including funding provided in-year this financial year, to meet the costs of the pay award. The Home Office was only able to deliver this substantial funding increase by reprioritising funding from other programmes. We recognise the critical work carried out by our police officers on a daily basis, and the recent pay award rightly reflects the vital work they do to keep us all safe.
This settlement also confirms the additional grant funding as agreed at SR21 of £150 million and provides an additional £259 million to mitigate the impact of increased pension contributions. Furthermore, a one-off top-up payment of £26.8 million will be provided to forces for implementation costs, reducing the financial pressures forces are facing to deliver these changes. This boost in funding reflects the continued, unwavering commitment from this Government to maintain the 20,000 additional officers recruited nationally, and ensure policing has the resources and capabilities to reduce crime and keep the public safe from harm.
For 2024-25, the council tax referendum threshold for PCCs in England will be £13 for a band D property. This Government remain committed to ensuring the police are properly funded without placing an excessive burden on local taxpayers. When setting their budgets, PCCs should be mindful of the cost of living pressures that householders are facing.
In return for this significant investment, it is imperative that policing continues to deliver on driving forward improvements to productivity and identifying efficiencies where possible. The Government will continue to work with the sector to unlock the full range of opportunities and benefits of productivity and innovation to enable officers to have the tools to deliver on their core mission of keeping the public safe.
We therefore expect policing to approach the 2024-25 financial year with a focus on this Government’s key priorities:
Maintaining 20,000 additional officers (148,433 officers in total nationally) through to March 2025.
Continuing to deliver on the opportunities presented by new technology and innovation to deliver improvements in productivity and drive forward efficiencies, therefore maximising officer time and service to the public.
Improving the visibility of police officers and focusing on providing a targeted approach to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour to make neighbourhoods safer, which should be a priority for all forces.
Police uplift programme
Since 2019, this Government have invested over £2.7 billion additional funding into Government grants, to enable the recruitment of 20,000 additional officers. In March 2023, the Government, in partnership with policing, successfully delivered on their commitment, which is an extraordinary achievement. As a result, we now have more officers in England and Wales than the previous peak in 2010—and the most officers on record. It is vital that this continues throughout 2024-25 so that communities can receive the benefits of this investment. We are therefore allocating £425 million to the maintenance of additional officers for 2024-25, to be distributed as follows:
£67.2 million of the £425 million will be paid to the forces who volunteered to recruit additional officers agreed on 31 March 2023 as an “additional recruitment top-up grant”—providing financial certainty to those who chose to bolster officer numbers above targets.
£357.8 million will be ringfenced funding, which will be allocated via funding formula shares. PCCs will be able to access this funding, as in previous years, by demonstrating that they have maintained their officer numbers.
Efficiency and productivity
As the Home Office has reprioritised budgets to make significant investments in policing, it is the responsibility of police forces, like all public services, to ensure that they make best use of that investment. This includes reducing inefficiencies and maximising productivity, and in doing so ensuring that the money provided to policing represents value for money. Police forces have exceeded the efficiency target that was set out at the start of this spending review period and this work should continue, for example through ongoing collaboration with BlueLight Commercial, who estimate their work has supported the delivery of over £170 million-worth of cashable and efficiency savings.
The recently published policing productivity review has examined productivity in policing and developed a range of recommendations which, if fully implemented, could free up the equivalent of an estimated around 20,000 full-time police officers over the next five years. The Government are keen to work with the sector to unlock the full range of opportunities and benefits outlined in the review. We will publish a formal response in 2024 once we have fully considered the recommendations and engaged across Government and with key stakeholders in policing.
Investment in new technologies and innovation has the scope to unlock productivity at force level, support the policing of serious offenders and allow forces to provide increased support to the communities they serve. In 2023-24, the Home Office accelerated delivery in areas including automated redaction for text and multimedia files, and we began to explore the scope of robotic process automation to reduce the amount of time the police spend on tasks such as data cleansing, data entry and vetting checks. We have continued to invest in giving the public a choice in how they contact the police with increased digital contact, including the development of a public facing app. In 2024-25 we will maintain our investment via the National Police Chiefs’ Council chief scientific adviser for a biddable funding pot, to identify and support local innovation within forces with productivity benefits. We will also provide £11 million to support productivity with increased investment in innovative technology. The funding arrangements for specific programmes will be confirmed in due course.
National policing priorities
This settlement provides £1 billion for national policing priorities (as set out at tables 1 and 4) to ensure local policing bodies and forces have the resources and tools they need to address the evolving challenges of policing in the 21st century.
The Home Office is delivering a range of major law enforcement programmes, which will replace and improve essential national technology systems. This investment supports the modernisation of core national systems, enhancing the way forces communicate with each other and law enforcement partners to share data, intelligence, information and evidence. We are also improving the quality and the use of police data, providing national search capabilities and advanced analytics, and putting cutting-edge technology in the hands of specialist officers to tackle high-harm crime such as child sexual abuse.
Digital capabilities can transform the way forces prevent and detect crime, safeguard the public and operate more efficiently. The Home Office remains focused on driving innovation and accelerating the delivery of priority capabilities into policing. This includes the development of a “digital front counter” that uses technology and data to improve service to the public, reduce demand on policing and improve efficiencies.
In total in this settlement and across wider budgets, the Home Office will directly invest in excess of £200 million in flagship crime programmes that are helping to keep our streets safe. This will support violence reduction units to tackle violence in the worst-affected areas of the country, it will enable the police to continue to stamp out the scourge of county lines and it will help local areas to keep their neighbourhoods safe, including through the continuation of Project ADDER. But this is also about maximising the impact of our funding. By targeting investment in hotspot policing in those areas that are disproportionately impacted by both serious violence and antisocial behaviour, we can drive down crime and deliver increased value for money. We are also continuing to invest in a number of other priority areas for crime reduction, including but not limited to economic crime, modern slavery and violence against women and girls. Funding details for specific programmes will be confirmed to the usual timescales.
Counter-terrorism
The Government will continue to provide essential support for counter-terrorism (CT) policing, ensuring it has the resources it needs to meet and deal with the threat of terrorism. CT police funding will continue to total at least £1 billion in 2024-25. This investment will support ongoing CT policing investigations to ensure the safety of our communities and includes funding for the CT operations centre. PCCs will be notified separately of force-level funding allocations for CT policing, which will not be made public for security reasons.
This settlement will support the police to fulfil their essential role in cutting crime and keeping people safe. I would like to express my continued gratitude and pay tribute to our dedicated police officers and staff for their exceptional dedication and unwavering bravery. I have set out in a separate document, available as an online attachment, the tables illustrating how we propose to allocate the police funding settlement between the different funding streams and between local policing bodies for 2024-25. These documents are intended to be read together.
Attachments can be viewed online at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-12-14/HCWS132/
[HCWS132]
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Following the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, I am today establishing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
I hereby give notice of the Northern Ireland Office’s intention to seek a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund. The Department requires an advance of £13,266,000 to meet the initial costs of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) on its full establishment. These costs were included in the Northern Ireland Office’s budget for 2023-24 so this does not represent additional spending. Accessing the Contingencies Fund will allow the ICRIR to undertake expenditure independently of the Department prior to parliamentary approval of changes to the Department’s ambit at supplementary estimate to recognise the full establishment of the ICRIR.
Parliamentary approval for resources of £4,650,000 and capital of £10,088,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Northern Ireland Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £13,266,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS135]
UK Data Infrastructure: Security and Resilience
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
Today, the Government have published the public consultation, “Protecting and enhancing the security and resilience of UK data infrastructure”. Data and its associated infrastructure and services are increasingly crucial to the UK’s economy, future growth and security, and are therefore strategically important at a national and global level—in 2022, the UK data economy represented 6.9% of GDP, and 76% of UK service exports worldwide are data-enabled.
The value of data means that the data infrastructure in which it is concentrated, and data centres in particular, are an attractive target to those with malign interests. Data infrastructure can also be vulnerable to disruption from other hazards, including climate events, such as extreme weather, which have the potential to interrupt the continuity of data-dependent services, causing impacts that could potentially be felt across the UK economy, public services and citizens’ day-to-day lives.
The Government propose to introduce a proportionate statutory framework, and complementary voluntary measures, to establish oversight of the security and resilience of UK data infrastructure. This would include regulatory requirements for operators of data centre services that we have identified as bearing risks that are particularly relevant to UK national interests and national security. The framework would ensure data centre operators have baseline mitigation measures in place, overseen by a new regulatory function. The consultation also seeks views on designating the parts of the data centre sector as critical national infrastructure. Views and evidence provided through consultation will inform design and decision making on whether to proceed, and how such measures would be designed and implemented. We particularly welcome input from data centre operators, cloud platform providers, managed service providers and other relevant market actors such as customers and suppliers, as well as independent or academic experts on data storage and processing.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on gov.uk. The consultation will run until 22 February 2024.
[HCWS126]
Trade Negotiations: Canada and Switzerland
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The Department for Business and Trade continues to make good progress on its ambitious trade negotiations programme. This statement provides Parliament with an update on the UK’s respective trade negotiations with Canada and Switzerland.
Canada negotiations
The eighth round of UK-Canada free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations began on 27 November and concluded on 1 December. This round was held virtually, across all sessions.
Technical discussions were held across 24 policy areas over 60 separate sessions. They included detailed discussions on treaty text.
Both parties built on the momentum from agreeing in principle UK accession to CPTPP in March 2023. The negotiations continue to reflect our shared ambition to secure a progressive deal which strengthens our existing trading relationship, already worth over £24.8 billion in the year to Q3 2022.
Switzerland Negotiations
The third round of negotiations on a UK-Switzerland enhanced free trade agreement (FTA) took place from 27 November to 14 December.
During the round, which was held virtually, UK officials held technical, text-based discussions with their Swiss counterparts in a number of areas, such as procurement, investment, small-medium enterprises, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and animal welfare.
UK negotiators were able to make significant progress and agree draft treaty text across a number of areas. There were good discussions on services and investment, where the UK is working with the Swiss to provide long-term certainty and greater market access for UK-Swiss service suppliers, boosting bilateral trade in this area worth £23.7 billion.
In other chapters, negotiators used this round to greater explore differences to approaches and consider ways to address them, while delivering against negotiation objectives.
Overall, these discussions reflect the UK and Switzerland’s shared ambition to agree a modern, comprehensive agreement, building on the current UK-Swiss trade relationship.
Conversations are set to continue into round 4, scheduled for spring 2024, where the UK side expects to continue productive discussions.
Summary
The Government remain clear that any deal we sign, including with Canada and Switzerland will be in the best interests of the British people and the UK economy. We will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that during these negotiations, the NHS, and the services it provides are not on the table. His Majesty’s Government will continue to work closely with Canada and Switzerland to ensure negotiations proceed at pace and take place on terms that are right for the UK.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
[HCWS129]
Grand Committee
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]
Thursday 14th December 2023
(1 year 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)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 12
The Earl of Clancarty
“Artist’s resale rightWithin 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the possible benefits of seeking to extend the Intellectual Property Chapter of the CPTPP to include provisions on the artist’s resale right.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the arts and creative industries; although, in the case of intellectual property, not exclusively so. It therefore picks up directly from where the first day in Committee ended a week ago. I did not participate in that debate but recognise the faces of some who did around this table. It is noticeable that those in the House most closely associated with the arts—I emphasise the word “most”—do not tend to talk about copyright or intellectual property issues because it is such a technical area. I pay tribute to those—including present colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and one or two others—who, over a long time, have been keeping a watching brief on this important area. I also pay tribute to outside organisations such as the Alliance for Intellectual Property, whose briefing I am grateful for, and its member organisations.
Artists are acutely aware that a bad or compromised deal for the creative industries will directly affect the rights and livelihoods of UK artists not just in their work abroad but at home too—as was very much borne out in a debate on intellectual property in Grand Committee on 20 November in relation to new regulations. This is a corrective, in a sense, to the view of some of the public, who believe that these kinds of agreements are about conquering new markets and nothing else.
In this group I support Amendment 24, on the Intellectual Property Chapter, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and Amendment 28, on performance rights, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. Outside this group, I also mention Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because there needs to be a debate on the effect of the CPTPP after the passing of the Act which also includes its implications for the creative industries. However, the concern about the extension of performers’ rights beyond this agreement needs to be sorted urgently.
My own Amendment 12 relates to the artist’s resale right, which is one important aspect of the wider landscape of concerns about rights for creators, in particular, the reciprocal rights—or potential lack of such rights—that this treaty has thrown up. Reciprocity is a key concept in much of this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg for their support. Unfortunately, owing to illness my noble friend cannot be here today, but he has kindly passed on to me some notes for the speech he would have made.
The artist’s resale right is a vital element of our visual arts culture and is hugely important to our artists. It is a fundamental IP right that provides a royalty to artists on the secondary sale of their work. It has been introduced in some form in more than 90 countries worldwide, Mexico being the latest, in 2023. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed it very well in Grand Committee on 20 November, when he said that he felt confident that these rights
“are now bolted fully into our intellectual and moral property rights”.—[Official Report, 20/11/23; col. GC 52.]
In the 17 years of its existence in the UK, the artist’s resale right has provided artists and estates with £120 million—moneys paid out by the not-for-profit organisation the Design and Artists Copyright Society, whose briefing for this debate I am also very grateful for. Artists invest ARR royalties into their practice which, in turn, supports the arts ecosystem. It is therefore not just individual artists who benefit but the culture as a whole, particularly since estates will also use the moneys to archive and restore work. It is important to note that, contrary to erstwhile concerns, there is no evidence that ARR has negatively impacted the UK art market or diverted sales to non-ARR markets. The UK art market is currently ranked second in the world, and ARR royalties represent only 0.1% of the market’s value.
I gave a very full speech on the artist’s resale right in the debate on 20 November on the new regulations. I refer the Minister to that. I will not say much more on ARR specifically, particularly as the Government should not need to be persuaded of the value of this right. I was very happy, in the circumstances, to back the Government in that debate on introducing the regulation that turned EU law on ARR into UK law. Of course, we now have reciprocal agreements on this right with two CPTPP member states, Australia and New Zealand, through separate trade agreements. I understand too from the letter that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, sent to us after the aforementioned debate that the UK is in discussion with Japan on this—a country, I believe, which does not yet operate this right. Could the Minister expand on that? Indeed, DACS has said:
“ARR should be introduced into more countries so that national artists benefit from this right, and UK artists get their due royalties for international sales”.
My noble friend Lord Freyberg has pointed out to me, with figures he researched, the particular significance of the Asian art market. This in part relates to Amendment 24’s reference to future agreements. Japan is a CPTPP member, while China and South Korea are among formal and potential applicants. Together, their art markets were worth around £10.5 billion in 2022 and are likely to continue to grow. My main question to the Minister is: what is the Government’s overall strategy for reaching agreements on this, both through this treaty with other member states, and with those outside it? Has this been broached in relation to this treaty, or will there be negotiations on the treaty so that provision for this will find a place in the chapter on intellectual property? That would be a preferable solution but if that is unrealistic, I would like to hear that from the Minister. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I entirely support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and that of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. Noble Lords will be aware that I made it clear at Second Reading that I had real concerns that our accession to the CPTPP was done on the basis of failing to get many of the improvements sought by the creative industries. I pointed out that I suspected that that had happened because we were being a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker.
That argument was well demonstrated by the Minister, who, in a subsequent letter, made it very clear that the CPTPP was “a pre-existing agreement”, and therefore we have little choice in this matter. However, I have been heartened by a further paragraph in which he says that
“we intend to be a constructive member of CPTPP and will champion our values and priorities, including through the committees and councils set up by the agreement. Our ambition is to play a full role to strengthen the high standards of CPTPP”.
He goes on to say in a subsequent paragraph that our accession
“will not limit our ability to seek more ambitious agreements, including with CPTPP partners”.
All I would say to him is that I hope very much that we will look to find ways of improving some of the current IP protection arrangements within the CPTPP.
However, I wish to concentrate specifically on performers’ rights—an issue we debated at some length in our last session. I confess at the outset, first, that I will have to speak for rather longer than I would normally hope, and secondly, that I remain somewhat confused about what precisely the Government are proposing. I am not alone in that. I have talked to a number of organisations that are concerned about intellectual property rights and the Bill’s implications for those. They too are confused. If I have got things wrong, I hope the Minister will be able to correct me and give a clear enunciation of exactly what the Government are proposing in the Bill.
Much of this is based on the concerns of the music industry, although I acknowledge that the issue goes somewhat beyond it. It is worth just reminding ourselves that the UK music industry’s contribution to our economy is enormous: £6.7 billion last year, with exports from the industry generating £4 billion. It is an important industry and it is founded on the fact that in the UK we have an incredibly robust IP rights regime, which includes performers’ rights.
The issue is extremely complicated, as the Minister acknowledged during our deliberations in the last session. However, in terms of artists’ rights we are talking, predominantly but not exclusively, about broadcast performances. If a recording of a UK artist, composer, publisher or record label is aired on a UK radio channel, we know that royalties have to be paid via the collection agency PPL and then distributed via an agreed split between the various parties involved in that recording. If it is aired on a streaming channel, exactly the same applies, although the split may be different. However, if that recording is aired in another country, whether royalties get back to the UK depends on the deals that we have done with those countries. That might be through a free trade agreement or other international treaties, such as the Rome convention or the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty—the WPPT.
Rights are often reciprocal but in some cases they can be limited. For example, Canada wanted to protect its small radio stations and capped the amount of money that they have to pay, so the amount that comes back to the UK is effectively capped. It might be supposed that the CPTPP Bill would deal exclusively with the arrangements for handling these issues between the UK and other CPTPP countries, establishing a reciprocal arrangement, just as we have done with other FTA deals. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the Minister says:
“We intend to lay secondary legislation under these powers in Parliament in February 2024. This will make technical changes that are necessary, along with the Bill, to comply with CPTPP and other treaty obligations. The secondary legislation will include changes to the rights that are extended to CPTPP Parties and the performers who have a qualifying connection to those Parties. In circumstances such as these—where the UK has little or no flexibility in how it must implement its international obligations—it would be inappropriate to consult”.
I have no concern about that whatever. However, the Bill goes much further and, as the BPI says, makes significant and broad changes overall to copyright law.
In the CPTPP Bill, the Government are proposing to make changes to copyright law that would introduce obligations for performers and rights holders to receive payment for public performances in the UK of their music via equitable remuneration. This would appear to apply to either all countries or some countries. I hope that in his response the Minister will make it absolutely clear which performers and which countries are intended to be covered. At the moment, as I say, there is considerable confusion about this.
In simplistic terms, as I see it, the plan is to extend an agreement whereby we would effectively be paying royalties to other countries and performers where there is a performance in the UK of their recording, either of the individual performer or that country, even when we have no reciprocal arrangements with them and then, at a later stage, to decide whether or not to limit those rights as, for instance, Canada has done. This could have a significant impact on the UK, with a potentially significant loss of income. For instance, we have no reciprocal rights with the United States of America, yet, until some limits are potentially imposed at a later date, we will end up paying royalties to the US and to US performers while they will pay no royalties to us for UK performances in the United States.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments includes a number of calls for reviews and impact assessments of the intellectual property chapter of the partnership agreement.
I have listened with interest to the case made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendment 12 on artists’ resale rights. He rightly draws attention to the importance of Asian countries to the international art market. Amendment 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, seeks an impact assessment of the implementation of performers’ rights in the CPTPP. Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, seeks a review of the intellectual property chapter within one year, which seems too short a period. The noble Earl’s Amendment 12 also requires an impact assessment within 12 months, which, as several noble Lords have said, would be too soon. Amendment 28’s requirement for an impact assessment within three years seems more realistic and reasonable. I hope my noble friend will respond positively to it. I also look forward to his reply on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on performers’ rights.
On the intellectual property chapter, I was happy to learn that the concerns previously expressed by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys about possible conflicts between that chapter of the partnership agreement and the UK’s membership of the European Patent Convention have been satisfactorily resolved. Can my noble friend confirm that?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for speaking to their amendments. I will touch on my amendment in this group. The detail the noble Lord has gone into raises a number of questions, and the detailed answers he seeks will cover all the amendments in this group.
My amendment is very straightforward; we have further groups later on seeking reviews of the negotiation. I understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about this being within one year, but we are in a very new situation with the CPTPP. Learning lessons quickly, both positive and negative ones, is crucial to our making correct decisions in future on FTAs and other negotiations.
Amendment 24 seeks a review within one year of the day on which the Act is passed. The Secretary of State must publish both
“a review of the lessons learned from the negotiation of the CPTPP Chapter on intellectual property”—
as we have heard, there are still a large number of questions outstanding there—
“and … an assessment of how this experience might inform negotiations of future free trade agreements”.
It is very straightforward.
Like others who have spoken before me, I have had a number of representations from UK Music and the Alliance for Intellectual Property. I seek clarification from the Minister of one of the points made by UK Music. There is a concern that the CPTPP parties are allowed to opt out of some of the IP provisions—for example, not recognising protection for the use of recorded music in broadcasting and public performance, which was one of the issues touched on earlier. The AfIP’s point was that
“the rush to join CPTPP may result in the embrace of IP”—
intellectual property—
“standards that are significantly weaker than those present in UK law”,
and thus cause growth issues.
I turn to geographical indicators, which may well come up in some of the later amendments and was touched on during our first day in Committee. There is a specific issue concerning the UK-Japan deal, which was rolled over. Geographical indication brand protection was promised in the UK-Japan agreement but was never delivered on. When the agreement was announced in October 2020, the then Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, promised that 77 specialist UK food and drink products would be guaranteed protected geographical indication status, alongside the seven that were then carried over from the previous EU-Japan trade deal. The former Department for International Trade said that the protections would be in place by May 2021 for all 77 new products. I will not list them all, although I am more than happy to. They included some iconic brands: Scottish beef, the Cornish pasty, Welsh lamb and Wensleydale cheese, to name but a few.
The DIT also boasted that, thanks to Liz Truss’s agreement, the UK would benefit from a fast-track process for securing brand protection that would not have been possible under the EU-Japan deal. It said that:
“The EU must negotiate each new GI individually on a case-by-case basis.”
The EU has added an extra 84 products to the protected list since October 2020, including 28 fairly recently, and the number of EU GIs with Japan now stands at 291, while the UK is still stuck with only seven protected products, which we inherited from the EU-Japan deal. Given this, can UK producers of geographically identified products be confident in the measures in the CPTPP, and is there any danger of the same occurring now with British food and drink products, putting them more at risk? Finally, will the Government revisit the UK-Japan agreement and deliver on those originally promised protections?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for returning to this important discussion of the various ways in which they are looking to improve our CPTPP Bill. I hope I can give them some good answers, illustrating my belief that we have a very good deal, the integrity of which we should try to retain as much as possible.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who is an expert on many things, said that he had yet to come across an expert who could clearly explain artists’ and performers’ broadcast rights. I am well aware of this, as are noble Lords. I will try to do so today but, given that no one has so far managed to do so convincingly, I hope noble Lords will allow me to write giving further clarification and useful examples and anecdotes. It is certainly a complex point.
The CPTPP brings to bear on the United Kingdom an additional series of obligations regarding performers’ rights. Currently, if you are a performer of, let us say, British nationality, and/or your performance is in the United Kingdom, you are entitled to the performance rights. The CPTPP looks at performances and rights in a slightly different fashion. In the instance of a performance taking place in a non-CPTPP country—which is where the controversy of this issue has arisen—it could qualify for artists’ performance rights payments if it was released or produced in a CPTPP country or if there was another necessary association with a CPTPP country.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I entirely take the point the Minister is making about the timescale for an impact assessment. Yet before we have even had the consultation on performers’ rights, the Minister is claiming that the impact will be minimal. I have not yet heard from him the justification for that claim. Also, while I am on my feet and to save interrupting him a second time, can he be absolutely clear that the details of the consultation on performers’ rights to which he referred will be available prior to your Lordships debating the Bill on Report? If we do not have those details and a clearer understanding of what is in the consultation and the implications of the Bill, we are put at a huge disadvantage.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that I am already talking about the impact, while also saying that we should not have an impact statement after one year; however, I do not think that that is fair. We are trying to have a broad gauge—is this a significant, multi-million-pound issue that needs to be confronted with urgency, or a relatively manageable amount of capital change? The instance we are looking at is not significant in relation to the music industry overall—it was a few tens of millions. I do not have the figure in front of me, but the noble Lord will understand.
That is the reason why we are having a consultation. Our estimate implies that it would not result in significant distortions of the music market in this country. Remember, this is for broadcast media. It does not include streaming, which is how most people access their music at the moment. It will result in additional artists being included, but many artists already are.
We should be aware that we often talk in these debates about the issues facing us—it is always about us. I would like us to look at the opportunities our artists will now have in terms of being protected. British music is the greatest in the world, and among the most popular. The Beatles are at No. 1 again; that must mean something. All the great bands are reforming to take advantage of these new benefits of CPTPP and the enormous revenues they will be paid, so something must be working. We should not lose sight of that. I think that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton told me that Blur are getting back together again. He will know more about it than me.
This is a very important issue. We must not lose sight of the fact that on the whole, these measures tend to result in additional protections which did not exist for our artists in many of these countries. That is very important. We can get lost in the detail. I am not saying that the detail is not important, but we should keep things in perspective. I cannot answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about when the consultation will be completed. It is unlikely that we will have the consultation back by Report, which is hoped to be the second or third week of January. I am aware of the time constraints and recognise noble Lords’ comments, but we will continue to work together to find a good solution. I am extremely comfortable having further conversations with the noble Lord and other interested Peers on how we can delve more deeply into this subject. I am very sensitive to the fact that we are trying to come to the right conclusion.
Turning to some of the other key points, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a very fair comment on artists’ resale rights. We have tried to propagate this position. It is a new concept globally and so far, 90 countries have taken up the opportunity to employ artists’ resale rights. Unfortunately, very few CPTPP countries deploy ARR in their legislation. The noble Lord was right to mention Mexico, and Peru is similarly beginning the process. However, it is at an early stage and has not functioned in a way that is advantageous to our artists, so while the systems have been set up, they have not started to yield the payments we were hoping for. Therefore, we are not in a position to introduce ARR into the CPTTP, because many of the countries simply do not have that legislation to hand. It would therefore not be appropriate for what is a collective multilateral treaty that we are joining.
The noble Lord rightly asks about our strategy. I am happy to come back to him on our plans for continuing engagement, but he should be reassured that we specifically negotiated this in the Australia and New Zealand free trade deals and that we are in negotiations with Japan to see how we can implement that.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked about Japan and geographical indications. I cannot make a significant comment in reply, other than to point to our commitment to continue negotiations on this. It was a very important part of the initial negotiations and the Secretary of State at the time was determined to ensure that these principles were magnified. I, my officials and the trade team will be happy to reassure the noble Lord, I hope, that we are moving forward.
I hope I have covered the questions raised. My noble friend Lord Trenchard kindly supported me with his point about impact assessments and timeliness, for which I am grateful. He also raised specific questions which I will answer in writing.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply on my amendment, which I found reasonably reassuring. As far as I can see, the Government are moving in the right direction on this. Time will tell by how much and with what enthusiasm they can persuade other countries to reach reciprocal agreement with us on this important right. I detected a suggestion for a possible meeting about this with interested parties; that would be really helpful.
On the other hand, I think many of us are much less convinced on the other concerns, particularly those about performance rights raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. He asked whether we could have the consultation before Report. It is really important that the consultation precedes any secondary legislation. The Minister has said that that legislation is technical, but the experts, including the Alliance for Intellectual Property and people in the music industry, say that we cannot be so sure what the effect will be of widening rights to foreign rights holders. We are asking the Government to tread carefully, and not recklessly in a way that will damage the UK’s creative industries. The principle of reciprocity is paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out. It should be a guiding light. Crucially, stakeholders need to see precisely what is intended to be in the secondary legislation before it is made. As we know, once secondary legislation comes before the House, it is too late to change anything. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Review: inward investment into the United Kingdom(1) A Minister of the Crown must publish a review of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on investment on inward investment into the United Kingdom.(2) The review under subsection (1) should include a consultation of such persons the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.(3) The review under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this second day of Committee on the CPTPP. In doing so, I declare my financial services interests as adviser to Ecospend Ltd and LEMI Ltd.
I will speak to Amendments 13 and 14 in my name. I also give a nod to the other amendments in this group and look forward to their introduction by noble Lords. In short, the purpose of my amendment is rooted in one simple premise: we need to increase our cross-border trade in financial services with other CPTPP nations. We have an extraordinary opportunity to do so. Chapter 11 of the CPTPP sets out the financial services requirements in the treaty and, as in any treaty, we need to play to our strengths. Financial services are obviously one such strength.
If I could have got it within the scope of the Bill, my amendment would have talked about strategies rather than impact assessments, because that is ultimately what we need here. However, for the purposes of these amendments, we are limited to impact assessments. In many ways, this is a development of many of the discussions we had on the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2023, not least what we achieved in your Lordships’ House in pushing through the international competitiveness secondary objective for the regulator. These amendments fit squarely with that intention and what we can achieve internationally with our financial services firms and ecosystem.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 15 in my name, and I support other amendments in this group, notably Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown, as well as Amendments 18 and 29.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, alongside my noble friend Lady Willis, for Amendment 15. My intention in tabling it was twofold: to understand how the Government expect the CPTPP agreement to operate in the context of the commitments that they have made on forest risk commodities and how they will ensure robust monitoring and enforcement with the new countries that we will trade with in that bloc and, linked to this, to query when the Government will enact the forest risk commodities regulations under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021.
On the latter point, I welcome the announcement at the weekend by the Environment Secretary on some of the content of the regulations. The letter that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, yesterday said that they will be brought into force as soon as parliamentary time allows. These announcements suggest that the regulations are imminent, so I hope the Minister can now clarify for us exactly when they will be brought in. Will it be January, before he comes back? If he cannot tell me that, can he confirm that the regulations will at least be in place before we accept the rest of the agreement? That is a crucial point.
It is critical that this happens as soon as it can, not least because, following the Financial Services and Markets Act earlier this year, in response to an amendment passed by this House, the Treasury is required to assess the extent to which regulation of the UK financial system is adequate to eliminate the financing of prohibited forest risk commodities. This review can happen only after the regulations in Schedule 17 are laid.
Moreover, the Environment Act received Royal Assent over two years ago and the consultation on this research closed over 18 months ago. In the meantime, Global Witness’s research in November showed that the UK’s direct imports of forest risk commodities such as beef, soy and palm oil directly contributed to areas of deforestation nearly twice the size of Paris. This has happened during the Government’s two-year delay. In that time, the EU has introduced its own rules, which have much wider scope, and has really moved forward with some ambitious thresholds.
This is important and relevant to today’s debate, because evidence shows that some countries that are parties to the CPTPP may engage in both illegal and legal deforestation. Indeed, although Schedule 17 regulations need to be implemented quickly, because we do not yet have any environmental requirements for what is imported, they are not perfect. They cover only illegal deforestation at the moment, which would not address the risk of the whole CPTPP treaty incentivising the production of deforestation risk commodities in countries where national laws are not sufficiently robust on deforestation or the rights of indigenous peoples, as was the situation in Brazil, as we knew, and is certainly the situation in Peru, from where we import quite a lot of stuff.
Will the Minister comment on how his department has reviewed this risk and what action we, the UK, will take to minimise it under the new agreement? With the Schedule 17 regulations expected imminently—but, as I said, I am looking forward to the clarification—could he also confirm that any forest risk commodities prohibited by the regulations will be prevented from entering our country, and how? Without having sight of these regulations, it is unclear how they will interact with the provisions of the CPTPP, which is what my amendment is aiming to clear up. Also, can the Minister confirm that, if these regulations are expanded or strengthened in the future, the agreement will not prevent the implementation of strengthened regulations? It is critical that we ensure that UK trade does not contribute to global deforestation, whether legal or illegal, but especially not illegal.
Turning to other amendments in the group, I am very supportive of Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. The health implications of some of the pesticides used in many of the countries party to this treaty are truly appalling. If anyone wants to go online and look up what kind of things will be coming in on fruit and veg and other products, they will find it scary. In Britain, when we were in the EU and still today, we had and have rigorous rules in place to prevent our children and ourselves having access to these pesticides, which are carcinogenic, affect fertility and do all sorts of weird and awful things. This is something that we have proudly fought for and should proudly uphold. Anything that allows stuff to sneak through under the wire has to be stopped; otherwise, it is not just a question of what it will do to our health but also completely undermines our high farming standards, which we all agree are terrific and have to be maintained.
I am also very keen that we support Amendment 18 on the assessments and procurement provisions, particularly in the Bill. That is something we should do for every trade agreement—and we should always go further and do comprehensive environmental impact assessments on detail, so that we understand our footprint. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol.
Notwithstanding the TAC’s limited resources, it has a really narrow remit and is not tasked to do this. I hope I have made clear the importance of understanding the climate and environment footprint in joining the CPTPP, as well as the health implications, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, will outline in a second. I look forward to hearing what plans the Government have.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I shall speak to Amendment 16 and to Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on which we have just heard her speak. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Curry of Kirkharle, as well as the noble Baroness, who have added their names to my amendment.
In introducing my amendment, I pay tribute to Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on mitigating risks to the environment of food safety, which I support as highly relevant to the amendment that I have tabled and will talk about briefly today. Amendment 16 would ensure that the pesticide testing regimes at the UK borders are fit for purpose, when we have an increased number of food stocks for animals and humans arriving from CPTPP member countries. It specifically aims to ensure that our testing regimes are robust enough to monitor and prevent those foods that have these pesticides on them—because they have been used in the production of the food type—entering the countries.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just said, our UK pesticide standards are some of the strongest in the world, and we should be very proud of that. In fact, they are stronger than those of all other CPTPP member countries. If noble Lords have not seen it, I recommend the Toxic Trade report, published in 2021 by the Pesticide Action Network. It revealed that 119 pesticides were banned from use in the UK but were still permitted in CPTPP member countries. Even more worrying than this, 67 of these are classified as highly hazardous pesticides, a UN concept that identifies pesticides that cause significant human harm.
I shall give two examples from when we ask whether we are over-worried about significant human harm. The first is Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide. To give noble Lords a hint of its problems, it was originally developed as part of a family of nerve agents during World War II and is now one of the most toxic and widely used pesticides globally. It is used by our CPTPP partners in Australia, Chile, New Zealand and Peru. What does it do? It has been identified through scientific research as a developmental or reproductive toxin. I checked through the good research on this, which demonstrates that it can permanently and irreversibly damage the developing brains of children. It is also a suspected endocrine disruptor, which means that it may interfere with the body’s hormone functioning. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor, which means that it may interrupt normal nerve signalling in the body. For all these reasons and due to this scientific evidence, it was banned by the UK and the EU in 2019.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Willis, since my Amendment 27 follows on neatly from the thinking behind Amendments 15 and 16, introduced so eloquently by them.
Clearly, I made a slip of the pen when I asked a Minister of the Crown within 12 months—for which read “24 months” or longer—to publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP chapter on government procurement on environmental protection, animal welfare, health and hygiene. My noble friend was very kind to take me for a cup of tea to discuss these issues on previous legislation, so he is well versed in my concerns here.
Amendment 27 is meant as a probing amendment to ensure that there are not just opportunities for fair, better trade between the CPTPP block and the UK but that we are mindful of what our consumers want and what our farmers are being asked to deliver: high food safety and high food production standards. My probing amendment seeks a commitment and a reassurance from my noble friend that those high food production standards required of UK farmers and insisted upon by British consumers are met equally in these imported products. It also asks at what point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, insisted, these products imported under this Bill will be checked at the external borders.
Why is this of concern and why is it necessary? The Government’s own advisory body—the Food Standards Agency—and Food Standards Scotland go into some detail in this regard in their latest annual report, Our Food 2022. I will not rehearse exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, but she was very clear that there are effectively two different schemes. One is the EU, which, the report says,
“still accounts for two-thirds of all food and feed imports, and 80% of all meat and other products of animal origin”—
that must be true because it is from the FSA. It continues:
“All food and feed imported from outside the EU is subject to a series of checks to make sure it is safe. The type of checks carried out depends on the type of product and the level of risk it may pose to public, animal and plant health”.
Then, of course, there is the category of the Windsor agreement—I accept I do not fully grasp it but my noble friend will be much more familiar with it. For the purposes of this afternoon, what concerns me is what the FSA focuses on at page 49:
“Currently, all food and feed of animal origin coming from outside the EU is subject”—
only—
“to documentary checks (which confirm that appropriate documentation is supplied)”.
Therefore, we are entirely taking as read what the exporting countries are saying. The identity checks will only
“confirm that the product matches the documentation”,
and, as the noble Baroness said:
“Additional physical checks are carried out randomly on a pre-defined percentage”.
To me, that leaves a bit of risk.
The FSA and FSS go on to say:
“Overall, non-EU imports have remained largely compliant with import checks compared with”
the year before—2021—so they are saying that there is not any significant fallout. However, the FSA
“recently commissioned the food consultancy ADAS to identify measurable metrics and data sources for imported food production standards that might be used to give the public a fuller picture”.
The ADAS report highlighted three specific points, which I think are of concern this afternoon:
“A general lack of publicly available data and issues with the quality of the limited data available … A lack of measurable metrics or clear approaches to measure or monitor them”,
and
“The absence of frameworks to evaluate production standards”.
The FSA and FSS conclude:
“Although the current system of border checks gives us assurance on food safety, there is no similar system for food production standards. Being able to assess the production standards, like animal welfare or environmental standards, of imported food on a comparable basis to UK food, is essential if we as watchdogs are to be able to assess whether the food standards of the food the UK consumes has been maintained”.
That is the fundamental issue that Amendment 27 seeks to address.
I accept that the NFU regards this as a more modest and measured agreement, focusing on market access by removing trade barriers, which highlights opportunities for exporting UK products that to a high proportion have hitherto not been possible. I have not been able to find the details, but I understand that there has been an announcement of more agricultural attachés, which I applaud. The first one, which was appointed in Beijing a number of years ago, has had substantial results. We are way behind the Danes and other countries in this regard, so we are finally catching up, which is very good news indeed.
I conclude with a very simple question for my noble friend. Does he believe in his heart of hearts that there is enough in the Bill and its supplementary provisions to ensure that our consumers and our farmers, who adhere to the highest standards of food production, environmental protection and all the other things that this amendment would enhance, will not meet unfair competition from imported products from the countries that are party to this agreement?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 25 and 30 and then touch even more briefly on Amendments 13 and 14.
Amendment 30, which will shortly be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, calls for a parliamentary debate on a CPTPP impact assessment. This is really important, because the influence of this House is not in the big decisions we take but over the Government—although it is too late when they have already signed a treaty—and the House of Commons. Although we do not normally tell the House of Commons what to do—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, chose his words very carefully—in this circumstance it is really important.
In addition to the impact assessment, the International Agreements Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I sit on, will also write a report on the treaty. We can get that to influence the real decision-makers down the Corridor only if this amendment is agreed and we ensure that a debate happens there. The request for an impact assessment is a nice little segue into a debate on our report as well. By concentrating on the wider impact assessment, it also allows a wider range of issues to be considered, such as prices. Nobody ever talks about the impact of these agreements on prices. We hope that and other issues will be very good for consumers but we need to see that, so a debate will be important.
Amendment 25, which my noble friend Lord McNicol will speak to, requests an impact assessment on labour and ILO standards. This is key. We want this and any other FTA not just to maintain but, we hope, to bolster ILO standards—not just through paper adherence but enforcement. I think we all agree that trade is good for jobs, consumers, our exports and the economy, but that must not be at any price. It cannot undermine any ILO standards. Indeed, I hope it will enable us and others to be rather more observant of them.
Very briefly on Amendments 13 and 14, I strongly concur with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the importance of increasing investment. As I will make a wider point, I declare that I am a leaseholder and am on the board of the ABI, but I bring to the Committee an issue of core importance to prospective overseas investors that I have read about in the financial and specialist press rather than know about through any personal connection. In a completely different part of government, there is an attempt, with leasehold reform, to make retrospective legislation to reduce ground rents to peppercorn rents. That is very attractive for lots of people, but there is a real clash with the desire to increase overseas investment via the CPTPP, because many overseas investors—to say nothing of our domestic pension schemes—are concerned about non-compensated loss of property rights or contracts if their ground rents are suddenly taken away from them retrospectively.
That retrospective nature could undermine the Government’s welcome attempts to get more international investment into the country, because the attractions are not just over trade agreements such as this but over all the other things that we know we are known and valued for: stability, certainty and the rule of law. That needs to go hand in hand if the objectives of this deal are to be taken into account.
That was a little off-piste, but I could not resist it. My real point is that we need to know far more at a more granular level and after the event about what this agreement has produced. That needs to be debated in this House and elsewhere so that the influence of, in particular, my colleagues and the specialists we have heard from, who put so much into this, can be heard at the other end of the building.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was an extremely effective chairman of the International Agreements Committee. I have only two points.
First, in response to overwhelming demand across the Committee, I have agreed to repeat the extraordinarily boring technical point I made in our first day in Committee about deadlines. The majority of the amendments in this group set deadlines that hang on the passing of the Act. I respectfully suggest that what matters for reports is the date on which our accession takes effect. That might be in the course of next year—I hope it will be—but that is not certain. Some of these amendments would call for reports almost certainly before we have actually acceded. Accession takes place when the last ratification is received by the depositary power, so the right peg to hang it on is not the passing of the Act, which permits us to ratify, nor our ratification, but the 12th ratification, which allows us in. I know that these are mostly probing amendments, but I suggest to their drafters that it might be a good idea to use the peg of our actual accession rather than the passage of the Bill. I exempt some of the amendments in this group; this is only for the ones that hang on performance and how it is working out, because it would be well for us to be in before we require the Government to report on how being in is working out.
Secondly, I am a little concerned about Amendment 32— the accession amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Foster of Bath. It would require the Secretary of State to produce
“an impact assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom of the accession of countries that have submitted a request … to accede to the CPTPP within the last five years”.
That would include us; it would be jolly useful to have an impact assessment for us, but I do not think that is the purpose of the amendment. The deadline is
“within three months of the passing of this Act”,
which is the wrong deadline, for the reason I gave.
However, my point is more substantive than that. Apart from us, there are six countries whose applications to join the CPTPP have been received in the last five years: Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Ukraine, China and Taiwan. The rules of the game, of course, are that consensus is required before a negotiation starts with any applicant country and consensus is required before a negotiation is closed, completed, and then the ratification process starts. It is also the case—not so much in our case but in previous cases—that there have been a lot of side letters and deals done in the margins of the main accession negotiation.
It is misleading to call for an impact assessment of what would be the impact of the outcome of any of these six negotiations. One cannot do that now. A very good moment for dialogue with the Government would be when CPTPP was considering whether to open negotiations. It seems that three months after the passing of the Act, one simply does not know. I add, on a personal basis, that I do not think that six negotiations will start in the foreseeable future. The applications of three of these countries pose serious political problems. In one case, there will be an enormous change to the nature of the CPTPP if the accession took place—a change that I think would be undesirable and, I believe, a majority of members think would be undesirable. There are, however, two other cases where considerable political problems arise.
Setting early deadlines and calling for the Government to go public with their analysis, which would in fact present the Government’s negotiating position, would be unwise. I do not think that we should ask our Government to go on the record in advance about a hypothetical negotiation which, in my view, in three of the six cases is unlikely to start in the foreseeable future. The Government would not be wise to act on that requirement, so I hope that they will resist that requirement—or, rather, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will have second thoughts about Amendment 32.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I speak first to Amendment 35 in my name. The Government are keen to strike deals with countries with which we have not previously had economic trade, especially in farming. While it is important for the economy of both countries involved, it is also important to ensure that our UK producers, farmers and industry are not disadvantaged by these trade deals. A published impact assessment is essential for public confidence to be maintained.
Currently the UK farming industry is undergoing a period of considerable change. It is being weaned off the basic payment scheme, which was based on the amount of land owned, and on to ELMS, which should see greater benefits for the environment and biodiversity. Both these steps will eventually be good, but the current state of flux around the funding under ELMS is unsettling at a time when the BPS is being phased out quite rapidly, as some farmers believe.
Our UK farmers produce their crops and raise their animals to extremely high standards. These standards are not necessarily replicated in other member countries of the CPTPP. Sow stalls, which are banned in the UK, are used by CPTPP members. This is just one example where, if the British public were aware of it, it would lead to an outcry. The animal and horticulture imports that are likely to come under the new trade deals may have been exposed to pesticides and fertilisers which are banned in this country—I will speak more on this later. These imports will have been produced at a lower cost than the UK farmer can meet, and our farmers will be at a disadvantage as a result of being undercut.
There is an impression among some people that farmers are all wealthy landowners. This is not the case. There are many smaller farmers who struggle to make a decent living out of the land. In the days before universal credit, I knew a farmer who earned so little from his land that, had he chosen to claim, he would have been entitled to income support.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to return to our invisible trade and speak in support of Amendment 13, on inward investment, and Amendment 14, on financial services trade, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I declare my interests as an employee of Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker.
There are significant advantages of being part of CPTPP in its early stages and being able to influence the shape and development of many aspects of the treaty, in particular financial services. To get the most from membership, we need to develop trade strategies that play to our economic strengths and ensure that we are working to remove barriers to cross-border trade that could benefit the UK.
I will take the two amendments in reverse order—it may be my upbringing in Ireland. The assessment proposed in Amendment 14 would inform a strategy about how the UK Government, working with our regulators, could seek to expand partnerships with CPTPP markets and address market access barriers, which would expand growth opportunities for UK financial services. In particular, the assessment should look closely at the regulatory barriers within certain CPTPP countries. They are set out within Annex III of the treaty, which lists the domestic barriers to cross-border financial services trade.
We need to consider how we can reduce those barriers, to the benefit of both the UK and our new partners. For example, the Government have rightly identified Malaysia as a crucial trading partner. Malaysia is much in need of the kind of support our world-class financial services businesses can offer. The London insurance market could play a major role in helping the country to protect itself against the increasing threat of cyberattacks. Malaysia has fallen victim to an increasing number of such attacks. Indeed, 62% of Malaysian businesses have put off digital transformation efforts due to fear of cyberattacks.
The UK’s commercial insurance industry is made up of global innovators when it comes to protections against these risks. However, Malaysia has an extremely protective, complex and restrictive insurance regime to be navigated before permitting offshore reinsurers to be offered a risk. Many other CPTPP countries operate with differing restrictions, making it hard for UK markets to trade. Reducing these barriers would help treaty countries such as Malaysia to reinsure their risks through London and out of the country, taking advantage of the global insurance capital that London can access and thereby gaining better protection by spread of risk. It is not just cyber risk; we can help protect from a myriad of other exposures as well. These are the opportunities that are on offer, and Amendment 14 would give us a plan and a set of priorities to consistently pursue.
I turn to Amendment 13. Growing cross-border trade and encouraging inward investment are two sides of the same coin. We must ensure that the UK is a welcoming, agile, easily navigable place to do business, and use the opportunities that agreements such as CPTTP bring to really sell what the UK has to offer to our trading partners.
My noble friend Lord Harrington’s review of foreign direct investment is a very welcome addition to this debate. His recommendations for a business investment strategy, for our regulators to be much more focused on inward investment, and for a consistent government strategy towards encouraging investment are all applicable to financial services and would greatly enhance our offer to CPTPP investors.
This is an approach that other CPTPP members are actively pursuing. As my noble friend Lord Holmes mentioned, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has a team dedicated to growing Singapore’s share of global industry, separate and distinct from regulatory colleagues but providing a joined-up and seamless service to those seeking to invest, create jobs and support growth. Another example is the Singapore College of Insurance, which is regarded as the most powerful insurance qualification in the Asia Pacific region, extending Singapore’s influence and shaping markets. Ours are extremely well thought of as well and should meld in. Australia is also looking ahead and has been growing its influence in the region, having signed a free trade agreement with Indonesia in 2020—a potential future and very significant member of the CPTPP.
Both these amendments would therefore help to ensure that we can take full advantage of being part of this living agreement, which is likely to be significantly developed in the years ahead. We need to prioritise the areas where we are economically strong and use our expertise to the benefit of our economy.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister arising from Amendment 14. I need to declare an interest in the context of professional qualifications, and as a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Ashcombe, said about the potential for financial services. There is a very big debate to be had on that, but at table 5, on page 46 of the impact assessment, the percentage change in trade shows a decline in the UK’s financial services and an increase in imports of financial services. Maybe the Minister could help the Committee by reconciling what the noble Lords said and what the impact assessment is telling us.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as chair of Peers for the Planet and director of the associated company. I will speak very briefly, broadly on the environmental issues that have been raised in this debate and particularly to give my support to the general principle of impact assessments. The case has been made very clearly that we need in particular to understand issues such as farming and the environment, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, will speak to later. This is a complex area and unintended consequences are possible.
I want in particular to support Amendment 15 and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. Amendment 15 relates to the very important commitments the Government made on preventing the use of forest risk commodities. We really do need clarity on this, and particularly when the Schedule 17 regulations will be laid. I hope the Minister can confirm that the regulations will be in force before we accede to the CPTPP. Although the agreement does not impact the UK’s ability to put these regulations in place, given that we do not otherwise have environmental requirements for what is imported, we should not enter into trade agreements that increase the likelihood of forest risk commodities being imported into the UK without those standards being in place.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has been a significant debate and has had a number of themes. One is how we use this accession to benefit UK business. The Minister heard me say on the first day in Committee that I am a passionate advocate for the proper operationalising and implementation of trade agreements, to the benefit of UK business sectors. But of course, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, there are lingering concerns that we need to monitor very closely.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness made the case for their amendments very well, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who comprehensively laid out hers. I too look forward to the Minister’s reply to the very strong case she made, to which I will listen very carefully. I suspect that she and I are both grateful to Hansard for putting the Ts, Ps and Cs in their correct places as we have debated this issue.
I have a number of amendments in this group. On Amendment 30, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her support. I had some notes to make the case for it but she made it better than I could, so I simply acknowledge that. Her fellow member of the committee, however, is slightly more quizzical with regard to my Amendment 32. I always listen extremely carefully to the noble Lord, especially when he agrees with me, but I do so even when he does not. To some extent, this amendment is a wee bit like a child of many of the cases that he has made, arguing strongly for Parliament to have a stronger say in the early stages of when we enter into trade agreements. He has made the case, with his great experience in the United States, that members of Congress were able to use the power that they had to allow the US trade negotiators to have a stronger hand when it came to many of these discussions. That is what I have called for in many respects in previous trade debates, and he has made that case very strongly.
If we are to do that, we need some form of mechanism, such as Amendment 32, to allow us to understand who is seeking to accede to the CPTPP, what implications there would be for the UK and what are the particular areas with regard to those countries that are important to the UK. If I have a concern about an accession to a trade area rather than entering into negotiations on a bilateral FTA, it is that we will have even less ability in Parliament to understand the consequences. This is no way to undermine the UK’s trading relations with Ecuador, Costa Rica or Uruguay, but it is perhaps even more important when it comes to China and Taiwan. To have transparency in parliamentary debates about the implications for and impact on the UK in advance of their accession is therefore even more important. I hope the noble Lord might be able to reconsider his position on that.
On the noble Lord’s point about the amendments relating to the commencement of the Bill rather than accession to the treaty, he made that point very well on the first day in Committee before he had to go into the Chamber. If he had had an opportunity to see Hansard, he would have seen my reply, which was that there are powers even greater than he and I—namely the Public Bill Office—which ask us to put forward amendments in scope of the Bill. I have tried as much as I can to go beyond scope but, unfortunately, I was not able to do so, which is why I have these probing amendments.
On Amendment 31, I hope the Minister will notice that I am asking for an impact assessment within two years of the passing of this Act, and I expect him probably to simply accept this, with great humility. Regarding an amendment on further accession, we will have an opportunity to debate that when we come to the next group, specifically with regard to the potential consequences for China.
Finally, I just make reference to Amendment 29, because I have repeatedly raised this matter in relation to trade negotiations when the UK comes to join FTAs, bilateral FTAs or, as now, a trade area, and the consequences for developing nations and our trading relationship with them. We now have the UK Global Tariff and the Developing Countries Trading Scheme, which maintain preferences for us trading with developing nations outside the European Union. I had the pleasure of welcoming Minister Huddleston when he launched that scheme in Parliament in a meeting that I co-chaired with Theo Clarke MP on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trade out of Poverty. I support this trading scheme and commend the officials who have put it together. My concern is whether, when we join new agreements, especially the CPTPP, there will be preference erosion for those developing nations. One of the concerns is that, with the CPTPP, there will be and, indeed, that it may well set a precedent.
I give just one example of why this is important for UK trade. Regarding the concessions that we have given, the tariff rate quota for Mexico and Peru could well become a precedent if there are new members. As the trade area grows, it has the potential to erode trade preferences even further. One of the strongest examples of such erosion is the UK’s import of bananas. We secure our bananas from African nations, as well as those that may well join the CPTPP. For the British consumer, it is very important to receive their bananas but, for the producing countries, it is even more important. In Ghana, a Commonwealth partner of the UK, exports of edible fruits and nuts accounted for nearly 5% of all exports in 2021. For Côte d’Ivoire and Cameroon, it was nearly 9% and over 1% respectively. These are rural developing nations, so we are talking about 80,000 direct jobs, affecting the livelihoods of and sustaining half a million people in very rural areas. These are sometimes vulnerable economies which rely very much on the UK as both a trading partner and a sustainability and development partner. Anything that could impact that gives me concern.
UK consumers enjoy high-quality, cheap fruit. So much cost has been stripped out of the supply chains that a consumer in the UK buying a banana from Ghana pays the equivalent of the 1987 price, according to the Office for National Statistics. Given that we have had 180% inflation since that time, the real price of what was then a 50p banana would now be £90 if we included inflation. No one on earth is suggesting that the British consumer should pay £90 for a banana but, if we are not paying £90 for a banana and we are still buying our fruit from developing nations at 1987 prices, it shows that the economic value of producers in those developing countries has been suppressed considerably. This question will not be answered by anything that we can say in this debate, but it highlights one of my concerns about entering into new trade agreements: we are not giving sufficient consideration to preference erosion. It makes little sense to enter into new preferential trading schemes if those preferences are eroded by our entering into new agreements that have a meaningful impact on them.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say what consultation we had with our developing nation trading partners as part of the accession to the CPTPP. What mechanisms are in place for us to ensure that the benefits accruing from the new trading preference scheme will be protected when we enter into new agreements? How are the Government carrying out assessments? If they are not doing so themselves, and the assessments are not published, some form of amendment will be necessary, however it is drafted, whatever the timeframe and however it is linked. If we have trade preference agreements, they must be protected, and we have to ensure that there is no further precedent. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate across a large number of issues. Many of the points on which noble Lords have gone into detail were picked up at Second Reading, so I shall take in the comments made then with those of noble Lords who have spoken to amendments today and feed in all the information that we need.
I tabled three amendments on climate and labour standards and I shall focus on the labour standards one, which has been touched only on in passing. I thank noble Lords who have offered support. I shall turn to Amendment 25 and then take a step back to climate and other issues. Trade unions all over the globe have found consensus in concerns regarding CPTPP’s inadequate measures properly to enforce the ILO standards, which is why the amendment calls for an impact assessment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their input on this group of amendments; I will try to cover them in thematic order. As always, we are looking to have a good debate here and reach sensible conclusions, so I would be delighted to follow up with any noble Lord who wishes to do so. Actually, I think it would be helpful if, in the new year, we celebrated 2024 by noble Lords making sure that their first meeting is with me to cover specific areas of the CPTPP.
We can refer to the CPTPP as the FTA, if noble Lords wish to. I like “CPTPP” because, of course, it is relevant—especially in terms of all the aspects being covered today, such as the importance of ensuring that the effects of the trade agreement align with our commercial interests and our values. As noble Lords will remember, it was originally called the TPP—the Trans-Pacific Partnership—but Canada added the concept of it being both comprehensive and progressive. Noble Lords should be delighted that I am facing that now, because it is precisely what they are discussing; they should be reassured that the principles of comprehensiveness and progressiveness are very much embedded in the title itself.
I am glad that my view of a two-year minimum window for an impact assessment has now been broadly accepted. I have always wanted something to be named after me, rather like the “Grimstone principle”. Can this be called the “Johnson term”? I am not quite sure whether we are allowed to do that. Just because the impact assessment amendment line has two years in it does not necessarily mean that we would accept it—but I will briefly cover the crucial first point, which is about the principle of understanding the impact of these free trade agreements.
In our last debate on a trade treaty, many noble Lords looked at it in some detail and some Dispatch Box commitments were made. I do not have them in front of me, but I would be happy to come back to noble Lords on them at the next stage. I want to be clear about which areas the Government would look to review. There is some reluctance for there to be a codified, formalised, legislated-for, mandatory impact assessment because, as we have discussed in the past, these can be unadaptable and may not necessarily fulfil the requirement that this Committee is looking for, which is a true impact study in the key areas. Also, things will change, of course. So it is better that there is a flexible approach to this, where we get the right information.
From the point of view of this Government, who believe passionately in free trade and the benefits of this agreement, an impact assessment is something that we want to do in order to show the country the power of these free trade agreements and what they will result in. We will certainly look at the trade in goods and services, investment flows, the effects on the nations and regions of the UK, the effects on consumers and the effects on businesses. We will certainly establish the effects on border activity and, importantly, we will look at the effects on agriculture and the environment. I can say that those will not be areas to which the impact review will be limited; as I said, I would be comfortable to have further discussions around this.
Like other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond rightly referred to the opportunities of the CPTPP. I am not going to grandstand and dwell on the opportunities just for the sake of it, because this is an important debate that covers some of the risk mitigation around these free trade agreements and I am comfortable making those points the focus of parliamentary scrutiny, as they should be. However, it is also worth looking more positively at the opportunities that we have, how we manage our relationships going forward with CPTPP countries, the value we think we can add as a result of that and where we can make further gains.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
The point I was making, which I think is being followed up, is that there is a two-tier system. Right now, the Bill as constructed does not acknowledge that two-tier system. The problem lies in that two-tier system and the fact that all of these things that will be coming through with the pesticides on them will go through the risk assessment because they are not on the annexes, which they would be if they went into the first tier. It is those annexes that need to be looked at. I do not think that anyone is doing scare tactics, but I think there is a very big risk here that, as we get huge amounts of wheat coming in from Australia, there may well be pesticides on that wheat that we as consumers do not want to eat. I am not sure right now how the present system will address that.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising those points, and I am happy to provide further reassurance in terms of how we control our borders. We already import products from Australia and have done for many years; the Australia-New Zealand FTA does not make any difference to that. In fact, I can turn now to the protections we have for our agriculture sector. I follow on from comments I made in the Australia-New Zealand trade treaty debates that protecting our farming community is absolutely paramount for us. We are very sensitive to the effects that global trade flows can have on industries and communities, and it is completely right that we do what we can to ensure that we take a very gradual and phased approach to the changes of our quotas.
However, I would say that for the CPTPP, the impacts on agriculture are significantly less significant—I am sorry to have not presented a particularly clear sentence in that instance—than they are for the Australia-New Zealand trade deal, in the sense of the areas where we have increased the tariff rate quotas, in particular areas such as whole shell eggs, pork and other products, which are not at significant import volumes from countries such as Mexico, Vietnam and so on. We have phased in our tariff rate quota allowances over 10 years; we have taken a very measured approach.
I spoke recently to the president of the National Farmers’ Union, and she was very pleased. I asked whether I was able to repeat her sentiments, and she said I was. She felt very comfortable and pleased with the way we have negotiated tariff rate quotas at the levels we have ended up with. I will defer to my colleague, if she wishes to make an intervention.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am sorry to intervene. I do not have the Trade and Agriculture Commission report in front of me, but I think there may be a difference between food safety and food production standards. Will my noble friend take the opportunity to look at the ADAS conclusions and the conclusions of the Food Standards Agency on food production standards just to be absolutely sure before we proceed to the next stage?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Yes, I will reply on that point. As I said, there will be differences in food production standards, production capabilities and so on because we are looking at having trade agreements with countries in different parts of the world which have different weather patterns. In many respects, the whole principle is to complement our production. We are talking here about ensuring that the safety of the British consumer is not jeopardised through FTAs, and I am comfortable expressing that very important point.
My final point is on deforestation and other standards and relates to production standards rather than simply importing goods, particularly agricultural goods. As noble Lords will know, as a result of the Environment Act, we are bringing in further protections such that companies above a certain level are obliged to ensure that their supply chain is compatible with the legal framework. I understand that that will include illegally occupied territories that have been deforested.
I am afraid that I do not have an update on the timing of that legislation. As I believe my noble friend Lord Benyon said recently, it will be taken through when parliamentary time allows. I know from my conversations with my noble friend that this is an area of great interest for him. That was not a light-hearted comment meant to play for time. Noble Lords understand that we have a parliamentary calendar and have to make sure that this is done appropriately. I cannot comment on that, but I can say that the Government are committed to ensuring that these things run in sequence as closely as possible. As I said, we are already doing business with many of these countries and, in my view, a delay of a relatively short or reasonable period would not make a significant difference to the timing. They do not have to run concurrently, as they are not linked together.
I hope I have covered all the points. I am very comfortable coming back to noble Lords—I see I have not so I shall take some interventions.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just press the Minister for some reaction to the fact that his department’s impact assessment shows a deleterious effect on our financial services sector. What is the department’s approach to those figures in its report?
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
On my Amendment 25, I am more than happy for the Minister to write to me and the rest of the Committee on labour standards and ILO conventions and adherence to them.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I can say firmly that our commitment to those conventions is firm and absolute. It is essential to us that we do not derogate our commitments to the supply chain. As the Committee is aware, a number of new policy frameworks have been put in place to ensure that the supply chain has the responsibility to ensure that it does not include poor practices. They are now in force, and I would be delighted to work with the noble Lord to reassure him that the CPTPP does not lead to a derogation of standards. In fact, we think that participation in this group will allow us even more influence to align other countries in the CPTPP with our labour standards. I am quite confident of that.
I will touch on one or two other points that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, rightly raised the importance of high standards in the UK in reference to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which is currently going through the other place. I wholeheartedly agree with her that it is important that the UK retains its world-leading position as a country that respects the rule of law and property rights. I am sure that that Bill will do these things. I believe that a consultation is under way at the moment that will inform that debate, but I am not able to comment further on that.
The last point was about the impact assessment. If I remember rightly, it showed that there will be a growth in financial services exports and a more significant growth in financial services imports—if I have that right. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, must forgive me: I do not have his chart in front of me but I would be delighted to follow up on that. The impact assessment is a static one. It is not for me to criticise it because it says that there are several billion pounds-worth of additional trading opportunities that we can see immediately from CPTPP, which is to be celebrated. That is combined with the free trade agreement with Malaysia.
Is it worth our time today debating a multi-billion-pound benefit set out in a government impact assessment document? It absolutely is, but it is our convinced belief that not only will we have significantly more trade as a result of the CPTPP but it will give us the opportunity to do all the things that noble Lords opposite have been so particularly focused on: influencing the debates around labour standards, use of pesticides and how the environment functions, and how farmers can compete globally. Let us rejoice in the opportunities that it presents to our businesses.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister has given quite an extensive reply, for which the Committee is grateful. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Fox raised preference erosion, giving specific examples of developing nations, but the Minister did not have time to respond to him. I met the Minister before Committee and said that I would raise it as an issue. I have tabled an amendment and given specific examples today. I am not doing that just as an academic exercise so that I can listen to my own voice. These are important issues regarding our relations with developing countries and I would appreciate a response.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point and I ask his forgiveness if I have failed to cover it. It is very important. I did look at his maths: the price of a banana, if it goes up 180%, goes to £1.70, not £90—I just point that out, if I may. Aside from that, it is very important to say that our developing nation commitments are not derogated by joining the CPTPP.
We are very aware of the importance of the prospect of preference erosion and it is quite right for the noble Lord to raise it. I am very comfortable writing to him in more detail about this, but we are very clear that our developing country trading programme is an important priority for this Government’s trade policy. We will ensure that any new trade agreements, including this one, are compatible with that policy agenda. I am very happy to write in more detail and have further discussions. If there is further detail where he believes that this is not the case, I again give my sincere apologies for that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for writing, and I look forward to it. I am sure that would agree that cumulative inflation of 180% since 1987 would mean that £1 then is £180 now.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I will not get drawn into the debate on that, but I think that would be 1,800%, rather than 180%. However, the point is that the noble Lord is right to raise the matter of the estimated expected costs compared with the actual costs today, and the deflationary impact of global trade on some of our developing nation partners and the importance of ensuring that it can be mitigated in some way, regardless of the other trade deals that we are pursuing. I am grateful for his point.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank all noble Lords who participated and the Minister for his response. I was pleased that financial services and environmental concerns were grouped together, because that is, in many ways, the fundamental point that is often missed. There is no purpose in talking about financial services and finance without ESG being gold-threaded through it all. I can sum up today’s debate, in many ways, as: what purpose profit if no planet to spend it on? I again thank all noble Lords who took part and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Leong
“Report: accession of the People’s Republic of China to the CPTPP(1) Before any decision is made by the Government of the United Kingdom on the accession of the People’s Republic of China to the CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the impact of China’s accession on the United Kingdom.(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 17, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is unable to introduce the amendment due to a long-standing commitment. The effect of the amendment would be quite simple. Proposed new subsection (1) would require the Government to produce a report on the impact of the People’s Republic of China joining the CPTPP, before any decision is made as to whether the UK could support the PRC’s accession. Proposed new subsection (2) would provide for a vote in both Houses on the UK’s position towards the PRC’s membership.
I do not believe that this amendment ought to be controversial. The prospect of the UK joining a trading bloc with China—one that has the potential to be the largest FTA zone, accounting for 53% of global GDP and 30% of global trade—has significant long-term implications for the people of the United Kingdom and beyond. As such, it ought to be a matter for parliamentary oversight.
I believe that the PRC should not be allowed to accede to the CPTPP, but it has become clear that what seemed like an impossibility a couple of years ago looks more and more possible. After the UK, China is next in line. China is a much more important trade partner for many CPTPP members. Close economic ties have already persuaded some CPTPP members, such as Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, to voice their support for China’s entry. Australia, which previously opposed it, has reportedly softened its opposition and Beijing is lobbying hard for membership.
There are three key reasons why the PRC should be kept out of the alliance, and why the UK must not be bounced into a position of support without the support of Parliament. First, China should not be admitted because it will not meet CPTPP standards. The CPTPP contains major commitments on labour, the environment, IP and state-owned enterprises regulations that China is unable to meet. As my noble friend Lord McNicol has already said, Article 19.3 incorporates the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and Its Follow-up of 1998, which provides the right to freedom of association and prohibits all forms of forced labour, child labour and discrimination in respect of employment. To further entrench these rights, Article 19.4 explicitly prohibits members derogating from these protections, meaning the labour laws cannot be weakened to encourage trade or investment.
The CPTPP also establishes a number of positive environmental obligations for members. Under Article 20.3, members must effectively enforce environmental laws and must not derogate from them to gain a trade or investment advantage. The environmental chapter is enforceable under the CPTPP’s broader dispute resolution mechanism. The CPTPP also recognises the sovereign right of each party to establish its own level of domestic environmental protection. Although China has recently made important efforts to address environmental concerns, including by announcing its goal to phase out coal investment abroad and by debuting its emissions trading system, CPTPP obligations may none the less prove onerous, given China’s status as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the challenges it faces reconciling climate and pollution control with rapid economic development.
China will also be unable to meet the CPTPP’s data transfer obligations and standards, which eliminate data localisation and prohibits Governments of CPTPP members demanding access to an enterprise’s source codes as a condition of import, distribution or sale. Importantly, these provisions are subject to the CPTPP’s dispute settlement mechanism. Further, a national security exemption is not allowed to let members derogate from this regulation. Although China has made similar commitments on data transfer and data localisation, as a member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, this agreement does not contain a provision prohibiting the forced transfer of source codes. Additionally, the RCEP’s digital trade provisions are not subject to dispute settlement, and members may use a self-judging national security exemption to circumvent these requirements.
Secondly, should China join the CPTPP, it would definitely block Taiwan’s participation, as it did with RCEP. Given Taiwan’s importance in the supply chain network, the island’s exclusion from the CPTPP will have significant implications for the restructuring of the global production network and for the setting of standards in key industries and technologies where Taiwan is the leader. Further weakening and isolating Taiwan is neither in the interests of the people of Taiwan nor aligned with the interests and values of the United Kingdom and our regional allies.
That brings me to the third reason why China should be kept out of the CPTPP. Accession will make China more powerful and increase its willingness and ability to act coercively. China’s joining of the CPTPP will not only expand the CPTPP’s weight in the global economy but increase its global influence. A significant driver behind the CPTPP was the region’s recognition of a need for an alternative to be able to de-risk from an overreliance on China. This is good practice.
The United Kingdom played a key role in supporting China’s accession to the WTO, which I firmly supported. China pledged upon its accession to adhere to WTO rules, to phase out subsidies, and to ensure fair competition. It promised that the state would not influence commercial considerations. As we were reminded by the US trade representative in 2021:
“After more than 20 years of WTO membership, China still embraces a state-led, non-market approach to the economy and trade, despite other WTO Members’ expectations—and China’s own representations—that China would transform its economy and pursue the open, market-oriented policies endorsed by the WTO”.
Good faith may have been reasonable 20 years ago. Sadly, China has changed, as has its global ambitions. We simply cannot afford to get it wrong again.
In closing, I urge us all to recognise the importance of the CPTPP to the United Kingdom’s future economic and geopolitical importance and interests, and to support this amendment, which would ensure parliamentary oversight of the UK’s position on China joining the CPTPP.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I understand why this amendment was put forward and presented so well by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, but I do not support it. I do not think it necessary or desirable.
There are three politically controversial applications to join the CPTPP. The Chinese application is, of course, much the most controversial. If I were asked to predict what will happen, I would predict that nothing will happen, and that the Chinese application and, sadly, the Taiwanese application will remain in the “too difficult” tray for a very long time. Unanimity among existing members is required both to open a negotiation and to end a negotiation by agreeing to accession, and that is not foreseeable under present circumstances. The amendment is unnecessary because the condition that it sets—the peg for the report it calls for, which is a decision on Chinese accession—is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
It is also undesirable because, in general, there is quite a lot to be said for not requiring Governments to come clean on hypothetical questions. I admit that I used to work in government and, to put it in a pejorative way, it might be desirable to hide behind “There is no consensus”, rather than revealing which side one was actually on. That is conceivable and I do not think it is desirable.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the proposed amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Leong. I take the point that it is sometimes a very good idea, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, for Governments not to reveal their hands. None the less, there is a lot to be said for having both Houses consider in Parliament the degree to which, without China having joined the CPTPP—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, it may never join it—it has already caused a global imbalance to supply chains, and the levels of dependency in other economies on Chinese production, right across a range of goods.
As far as I understand it, certain economic research, particularly in the US, suggests that we are far better off as states if we do not depend for more than 25% of our imports on any one country. If China were, for some reason or another, to be accepted as a member of the CPTPP, there would be a danger that the existing imbalance which we see already would grow, as would the powers to influence and destabilise the global economy and, indeed, the security of smaller countries on which it has its eye. For these reasons, I support the spirit behind the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and I agree with what she said. I start by apologising to the Minister. My maths in my intervention on him were wrong. I admit that and want it on the record—that prevents him mentioning it in the letter he will write to me, which I look forward to.
I support the noble Lord’s amendment, and the context of what he said is very important. Together with the latter part of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, it means that we must have a wider public debate about UK-China trade in particular. I acknowledge that China’s accession is a very large “if”, and I will come back in a moment to the many reasons why, but that would have an even greater impact on UK trade, because China already has five bilateral FTAs with CPTPP members: Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Peru. It is also part of the two plurilateral frameworks which the noble Lord mentioned. We are already, in acceding to the CPTPP, entering into trading relations through FTAs with China.
This is even more important because, in 2019, according to the University of Sussex UK Trade Policy Observatory—I shall source my figures on this now—approximately 20% of Chinese exports were already going to CPTPP members, of which 50% were in intermediate products. What does that mean? It means that it is linked with what we debated on the first day of Committee: that when it comes to rules of origin, many aspects of UK trade will be involved with goods from China. That is notwithstanding the enormous trade deficit that we have in imports in our trade with China already. The Office for National Statistics report stated that, in 2021, China was the UK’s largest import partner. That is not to the extent of 25%, but 13.3% of all goods to the UK are imported from China. What gives me concern is that we have a £40 billion trade deficit in goods with China. When we look at certain key sectors, this becomes a strategic issue, not just a trading issue or one of the importation of goods. Our trade deficit with China in goods is larger than our overall trade with Italy, Switzerland or Norway, so this is of great significance. When we consider that Germany has a trade surplus in goods with China, it is a valid issue to debate.
The increase in Chinese exports to CPTPP countries has grown very significantly, including in services, which on average has grown by 11% a year. When we have been debating UK trade, moving away from the single market into the fastest growing part of trade within Asia, we know that we have a combination: we are heavily dependent on imports from China, and growth in Asian trade has been as a result of their relationship with China too.
On that basis, if we look at the position of China, what does the UK do? We know that we are heavily reliant on it, that the Government say our future is in this area, and that those countries are heavily reliant on China. The growth trajectory is based on Chinese growth, so when we look at aggressive military exercises, human rights challenges and abuses, or increasing territorial disputes—including of course with Taiwan, another applicant country or customs area—this becomes geopolitical. We have also seen clear examples of Chinese economic coercion against other trading partners. It probably would lead a rational assessment to consider that, if it was a choice for the UK between Taiwan and China, it should be Taiwan. But how do you make such a decision when we are so intertwined with the Chinese economy, as I have highlighted?
We are debating the various chapters for the UK. On digital trade, which we debate quite a lot in this House, we discussed concerns around China complying with standards on digital trade. Chapter 17 is on state-owned enterprises. These areas were debated considerably during the procurement legislation. Chapter 18 is about intellectual property, which we have debated quite considerably. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised chapter 19 on labour and chapter 26 on transparency and anti-corruption. All of these aspects may lead to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gave: that this is a hypothetical situation.
That may be correct, but nevertheless it has applied. We will be a member; we may form part of the commission to discuss this, and we may have a key role in those discussions about consensus for the application. Up until the point that China withdraws, I believe that our Parliament needs to have regular debates and we need to be informed. That is why I am sympathetic to this amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their significant contributions to this important section of the debate. I will go through the key points one by one.
In joining CPTPP we are securing our place in a network of countries that is committed to free and rules-based trade, and which has the potential to be a global standards setter. The CPTPP acts as a gateway to the dynamic and fast-growing Indo-Pacific region, and expansion of this agreement’s membership will only bring further opportunities, in our view, for British businesses and consumers.
There are currently six economies with applications to join the CPTPP, including China, Taiwan, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Ukraine. As noble Lords will be aware, the CPTPP is a group of 11 parties and will become 12 when the UK accedes. It has been agreed within the group that applicant economies must meet three important criteria. They must meet the high standards of the agreement, have a demonstrated pattern of complying with their trade commitments, and command consensus of the CPTPP parties. It is very important that I clarify that for this discussion. These are strong criteria.
Our own accession was successful because we are demonstrably a high-standards economy with a strong track record, and we garnered the support of every party for our accession. This sets a strong precedent: the robust experience that the UK has been through has reinforced the high standards and proved the bar is not easy to meet.
As a new member of the CPTPP group, it is right that we work within the principles of the group to achieve a consensus decision, rather than giving our own individual narrative on each applicant, such as through the report proposed in this amendment. This is not a question about one particular economy. The UK is closely involved in discussions on this topic but will have a formal power to oppose an application only post-ratification, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will be aware. We joined first so that we would be on the inside judging other applications, not vice-versa. It is therefore crucial that the UK ratifies this agreement and becomes a party. This will ensure that the standards the UK has met and abides by are continually upheld under CPTPP, with every future applicant going through this same rigorous process.
I reassure the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who spoke so eloquently, that accession of new parties after the UK has joined will entail a change in rights and obligations of existing parties. Any new agreement requiring ratification by the UK would be subject to the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 as per the Government’s commitment surrounding the CRaG process.
I assure noble Lords that accessions will proceed only if applicants have met the rigorous criteria and have consensus of the CPTPP parties, of which the UK will be one only once we have acceded. We will continue to engage with the public and Parliament through the mechanisms I have just outlined, before any future negotiations. In this complex matter, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I beg noble Lords’ patience as I share my business experience of doing agreements in China. I still have scars on my back. My first visit to China was in 1999, when I was a much younger law publisher. This was before China’s accession to the WTO. It wanted to acquire the subsidiary rights to every mercantile law—what a beautiful name—and commercial and international law book. I was happy to enter into agreements with various Chinese university presses. Noble Lords will know that most businesses in China are wholly or partially owned by the state, so you can enter an agreement in good faith but whether the agreement is abided by or complied with is a different conversation. After many years of doing business in China, the managing of agreements took its toll and eventually we stopped doing business there.
I will share a simple analogy with noble Lords. It is as if you allow a friend into your house and then suddenly notice that some things have been taken away. Much later, more valuable things are taken away, and then the friend starts dictating the terms of your stay in your own house. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Impact assessment: local businessThe Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on government procurement on the level of procurement by local authorities from businesses in the respective local authority area, not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an assessment of the impact of the procurement Chapter on local businesses.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, we are now on to the fourth group so we are getting there. We have been through the bulk of the detailed amendments, so these should be relatively straightforward. There are four amendments in this group, all in my name, so I will work through them. They all seek to have assessments of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP after two years. If we come back to these on Report, we will look to change that timing to being from accession rather than from the Act being passed, which is eminently sensible. As the Minister has said, a review will take place on the four areas I have highlighted—local business, manufacturing, the job market and public services. I am sure that he will be more than happy to accept into it.
To go into a little detail within those four areas, we are concerned that the CPTPP could open up public procurement markets, restricting public authorities’ ability to support local businesses that recognise trade unions or pay the living wage, so there is a concern regarding the criteria provisions of the CPTPP and the fact that in some cases they are narrower than the UK procurement laws and could encourage more contracts to be based solely on lower prices rather than quality and access to integrity of service provision. On local businesses, we seek clarification from the Minister that this is not the case.
I turn to the manufacturing sector, where again we have concerns that the CPTPP could pose threats to jobs as it would make it easier, to take an example, for Vietnam to export goods to the UK that could include cheap Chinese steel or other manufactured goods such as tyres, cement and glass deliberately routed through Vietnam to avoid remedies and tariffs. The Trades Union Congress is concerned that this could increase the rate of trade dumping in the UK manufacturing sectors, putting thousands of jobs in steel and related supply chains at risk.
In 2017 the European Commission found that China had been shipping steel from Vietnam to evade tariffs, which led to dumping in the UK steel sector. The risk of increased dumping from Vietnam, as well as other countries, is compounded by the fact that the UK trade remedy system is currently too weak to be effective. The TUC is part of the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance with the Unite, GMB and Community trade unions as well as a number of manufacturing employers’ associations. They are calling for stronger measures to deal with dumping from countries such as China and Vietnam in legislation and the removal of the public interest and economic interest tests, which prevent effective trade remedies being applied.
I turn to the job market. Following conversations with the TUC, I know there are concerns that the CPTPP may lead to job losses in some sectors due to increased imports from CPTPP countries. Of course there will be benefits from increased trade, but how do we ensure that important sectors of UK manufacturing are protected? I seek some reassurance from the Minister on that.
I turn to the public sector. CPTPP accession could also expose public services to further privatisation as it takes the negative list approach to service listings. This means that any services not explicitly exempted will be opened up to further privatisation. In the past, the Government have not adequately excluded services in trade deals to offer that protection. Meanwhile, the Government’s ability to exempt public services adequately in the CPTPP would be severely restricted as the UK would be joining the existing agreement with the 11, rather than at the start. This weakens and reduces our power to alter it. I beg to move Amendment 19.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful, as always, for the debate we have had around these important points. I hope noble Lords will agree that I have covered in previous groups the importance of reviewing these free trade agreements and how they impact our economy. As I say, I passionately believe that they will be enormously positive. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, may be overestimating the threats in areas such as privatisation, steel dumping and so on. We have strong protections from the TRA protecting our economy in areas such as steel. This free trade agreement does not affect our ability to control that area of our economy.
I am afraid that I cannot see how this FTA would lead to increased levels of privatisation. We have been very careful about protecting key areas of our economy. To some extent, my job as Investment Minister is to encourage flows of capital into the UK, and we were asked earlier for impact assessments around that. I would be comfortable with seeing flows of capital from CPTPP member countries into the UK: we are aligned with them, and they are our allies—we want to do more trade with them—but I do not think it will lead to the negative consequences to which the noble Lord alluded. However, I am comfortable to have further discussions. As I said earlier, we should look carefully in these debates at the sorts of areas that we wish to review to make sure that the impacts around FTAs are properly understood, but I would be very reluctant to have them codified in amendments to this Bill, for obvious reasons.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. As he outlined earlier, there will be an opportunity to review the implementation of the CPTPP in two years. The point of these probing amendments was just to put on record the importance of the sectors in these specific areas. He has put in Hansard, in his own words, that there will be no derogations in those areas, and I look forward to holding him to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.
“Review: Investor-State Dispute SettlementThe Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a review of the risk to the UK from implementing the Investment Chapter.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
This is a small group of amendments from my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and me on ISDS and the mechanism that comes with it. I am sure the Minister will respond, “Don’t worry, it will all be fine, the UK hasn’t been sued”—but we have. We and the French Government were sued with regard to previous issues on this.
My concern relates to two areas. First is the accession of Canada, which has shown under previous trade remedies to be quite keen, or at least a number of businesses in it have been. We have seen that in recent years. The other issue I am keen to put on the record and on which I seek clarification from the Minister is around the UK, or individual countries, changing their approach because of possible threats. I know that that is hypothetical—we do not want to go down to hypotheticals—but often Governments do not move forward with specific issues because there is a possibility of disputes or because in other areas there have been disputes raised against them.
The investor-state dispute settlement allows foreign companies to sue a Government for any actions that they argue could affect their profits. Conversely, it allows British companies—the Minister may well pick up on this—to sue other Governments that breach ours. In the past, the ISDS court system has been used to challenge increases in minimum wage and countries’ internal attempts to bring public services back into public ownership. When New Zealand joined the CPTPP, it opted out of the ISDS system with the countries that invested most in New Zealand. Why have the UK Government not asked for such exemptions? As a result, rather than taking back control, with the CPTPP the Government are possibly handing multinational corporations huge powers to challenge the potential overturn of UK government decisions and laws.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 26 and my Amendment 33. As my noble friend has clearly explained, this is about investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. This is a very important issue, so I make no apology for exploring it in further detail, even at this late hour for a Committee.
For the benefit of new readers of Hansard—I am aware that everyone here is by now more than aware of what we are talking about—the investment chapter of the CPTPP contains the ISDS mechanism. The provision allows companies to sue Governments over decisions that impact their corporate profits, even if those decisions are made in the public interest. That is the key point. In simple terms, ISDS allows firms to sue the Government for legislation that they have introduced for the general public good, where those decisions impact on company profits. This can have disastrous effects across the board of social and public policies, but particularly on policies on the environment and health and measures to combat climate change.
These concerns are widely shared and this is a big issue, which is why I wanted it to be discussed in a separate group. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned it, and she apologised for being unable to be here to support the arguments being made. ISDS has been used to challenge important environmental regulations under separate arrangements: water pollution controls in Germany, a ban on fracking in Canada and various regulations on mining in east Asia and South America.
I am a bit hesitant to mention the impact assessment because, effectively, the Minister suggested earlier that although I have read all 142 pages of it, I need not really have bothered. He did not seem to feel that what was in it should be taken seriously—but it does touch on this. There is one bullet point of 26 words, which covers the issue, and it says:
“A modern and transparent investor-state dispute settlement mechanism will ensure that UK investors can access an independent international tribunal should they not receive such treatment”.
Well, that is only half of what the mechanism achieves. The other half is foreign companies suing this Government for measures that they take. My view is that is the more important part, yet we have no assessment of its impact, which I would have thought is essential. The truth is there is a real proximate risk that ISDS would be used to challenge new regulations which are essential for fighting climate change.
There is also evidence that ISDS in recent trade agreements would be used to challenge health provision, labour rights and other important legislation. Here are some further examples. ISDS was used in Egypt to challenge an increase in the minimum wage. Philip Morris sued Australia for attempting to introduce plain-packaged cigarettes—albeit it lost, as was explained. However, it is the threat that is the real problem. Then Slovakia was sued for attempting to nationalise part of the health service.
I am not given to quoting the CBI—it is not my usual source—but it has expressed concerns. It stated in 2021 that there was,
“a risk of the UK becoming disproportionately targeted through ISDS”
and that
“there could also be environmental implications of the UK being exposed to the ISDS mechanism”.
That is the CBI expressing its concern. The UK did not include ISDS in its recent trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and the provisions were suspended in the rollover agreement with Canada. The Government could have sought explicit side-letters in CPTPP to be exempt but has chosen not to do this, which means that, if this treaty is passed, the UK will now, de facto, have ISDS agreements with Canada and Japan. This contract would effectively import these settlement mechanisms into the existing agreements, which the Minister has referred to.
In my view, the ISDS process is suspect in and of itself. Arbitrators appointed to reach a settlement are paid on a case-by-case basis and benefit from an increase in claims. Governments cannot do it the other way; they cannot use the ISDS system to sue investors, so arbitrators naturally have a bias towards companies or investors so that they encourage further investor claims and thereby benefit commercially.
There is a code of conduct for ISDS proceedings. It was established under the partnership to address legitimacy concerns that arise when a system allows adjudicators to act as an arbitrator in one case and legal counsel in another—so-called double-hatting. This provides some objectivity in the process, which other agreements lack.
However, if we look at the recent record, we find that the most utilised treaty for challenging climate action is the Energy Charter Treaty, under which many cases have been brought by western-based companies against Governments taking action to limit their expanded use of fossil fuels. So problematic has this flood of cases become that the largest European countries have now all signalled their exit from the treaty. The Government themselves have said that they are reviewing their Energy Charter Treaty membership and will
“carefully consider the views of stakeholders in business, civil society and Parliament”.
In this context, we are not really having a debate about the ISDS process in general—that is a big debate, and one we need to have—but there is a growing realisation that these clauses are an impediment to social policies and to climate action in particular. It seems perverse to sign us up to another ISDS clause in the partnership, exposing us to potential future lawsuits from companies with tens of billions of pounds invested in the UK.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, the impact assessment says that it is a “modern and transparent” mechanism, but what is modern and transparent about it? Secondly, should we not have an assessment of the likely impact of the mechanism where foreign commercial interests can require limits? In effect, they have a veto on our domestic policies. We are told that the whole point of leaving of the European Union was to take back control, as my noble friend mentioned, but these mechanisms reduce our control, taking it away from intergovernmental bodies and handing it over to people totally outside any sort of responsibility to the public.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for allowing us to raise very important issues relating to ISDS. We have previously debated these in considering trade Bills and particular FTAs, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments that have been made. My party supports a multilateral investment tribunal and appellate mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes. I have been studying the European Union’s recent proposals on moving towards a more global, multilateral element, and that is my party’s position.
As we have heard, these amendments are important because it is vital that the Government state their view. We knew that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was a strong supporter of ISDS mechanisms because he said so during consideration of the Trade Bill, but, as has been mentioned, we then had FTAs that excluded them. There is now uncertainty regarding those who were excluded but who are now also members of the CPTPP.
Like other noble Lords, I have questions to ask the Minister. Does the UK support an appellate mechanism within the CPTPP? Will the UK, as an acceded member, seek to implement the mechanism through the CPTPP in our relationships with Canada and Japan? Without the side letter, there is uncertainty. Will a company or a member be able to choose to resolve disputes through the CPTPP process or the FTA process? I am not aware of how that would operate, so some clarity from the Government will be important.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this important series of amendments and the discussion that we have been able to have around them. Since this relates to investor-state dispute settlements and I have investments in CPTPP countries, I declare that and direct all noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests—although I do not believe that I have any specific conflict and I am always happy to answer questions on any of those points.
For me, ISDSs are a very important element of protecting our businesses’ investments overseas. I spend a lot of my time talking to companies that make significant investments in many countries and, where they do not feel that they have protections, it creates a far higher level of work for the Government in trying to support them when they have disputes and clearly increases the hurdles for the necessary rate of return. So, from our point of view, having mechanisms where investors feel protected when investing into the UK economy by the consistency of the rule of law and the application of that law is very important. We are very comfortable with signing up to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.
The question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on whether the FTA or signing up through the CPTPP is linked to ISDS, is perfectly reasonable. My view is that it would not make any difference. I am very happy to confirm that in writing. You would not pursue an ISDS case according to a specific route: from the investment point of view, the country either has that relationship or does not.
To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord McNicol, I say that an important element of our system is that we have protections for our businesses when they invest internationally and that international businesses investing in the UK can have a high degree of confidence. It does not, at any point, derogate or hinder our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards. In fact, this right to regulate is recognised in international law, and CPTPP expressly preserves states’ rights to regulate proportionately, fairly and in the public interest.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is right to say that we have received a claim from investors relating to an ISDS. I do not think that that came from a CPTPP country, and it was in conjunction with another country. That is a fact, but not one that is necessarily in contradiction with the point that we have never singularly, acting on our own basis, had a successful claim made against us. That is important. We have nothing to fear without ISDSs, and I reaffirm that our flexibility to enact the legislation and frameworks that we want to run our country is not impeded if we stick to the rule of law and understand and respect the rights of investors putting their money in the United Kingdom.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. The bit I am struggling with is the contradiction, and I do not think that he has answered that yet: we signed side-letters excluding ISDS with New Zealand and Australia, yet the Minister says how important they are. How does he balance these positions?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. We did accede, in terms of their negotiating priorities, to do that. We have long-lasting relationships with Australia and New Zealand, and we are comfortable allowing that to be the case as part of the negotiating process. The point is whether we are willing to sign up for them, and my point to noble Lords is that we are. Clearly, we need to make sure these processes are properly followed and that they suit us into the future—but currently, today, we are very comfortable signing up for them. I think it gives us, and our businesses, benefit, and creates an overall higher level of investment confidence within CPTPP countries, and within the UK.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his detailed explanation of this. It may well be something we come back to on Report.
I thank the Minister for answering the question regarding the side-letters, who was pushing, and how they came to fruition. I think that was important. The Minister’s position is that this is about protecting our companies. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is a bit more detailed, but my Amendment 26 is simply calling for a review of the financial risks. I think that works well with the Minister’s position, so at this point I withdraw my amendment, but I am well come back to this on Report.
Baroness Lawlor
“Review: application in Northern IrelandWithin twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed and every twelve months thereafter the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the application of section 4 to Northern Ireland, including—(a) a consultation of such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;(b) an assessment of the impact of European Union legislation relating to geographical indications and conformity assessment of goods listed in Annex 2 of the Windsor Framework on Northern Ireland;(c) an assessment of the impact of Northern Ireland being subject to different geographical indication and technical barriers to trade provisions to England and Wales and Scotland.”Member's explanatory statement
This is related to the amendment in the name of Baroness Lawlor to clause 6, page 6, line 42.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 36 and 37, to which I speak, relate to the proposed arrangements for geographical indications and conformity assessments for Northern Ireland.
First, I shall say a word on the background as to why I proposed the amendments. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say:
“The GI and Technical Barriers to Trade … provisions in this Bill will extend to but will not apply in Northern Ireland. This is because, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, EU legislation relating to geographical indications and conformity assessment of goods, as listed in Annex 2 of the Windsor Framework, continues to apply in Northern Ireland. Article 15 of the Accession Protocol ensures that the UK can fulfil its obligations under the Windsor Framework”.
I have not been able to discover an accessible UK Government-consolidated version updating the withdrawal agreement and its Northern Ireland protocol with the changes under the Windsor Framework in Annex 2. This may well exist somewhere in Whitehall, but it is not clear how to find it. However, the EU has a consolidated version on its website, with Annex 2 in respect of decisions taken by the Joint Committee under the withdrawal agreement. The most recent version from September sets out these arrangements to which we refer in respect of the Windsor Framework.
Articles 15(2) to 15(7) of the CPTPP accession protocol deal with Chapter 29 of the treaty, on exceptions and general provisions, which provides for an exemption for the Windsor Framework clauses in respect of CPTPP where there is an inconsistency. There is also provision in Article 15 for the commission to review the implementation of the CPTPP.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive this tour of the relevant documents, but it is difficult to see from the Bill that its procedures in respect of geographical indications and conformity assessment procedures will not apply to Northern Ireland. It will instead be subject to EU law, as is clear from what I mentioned. I therefore have two reasons for tabling these amendments.
We do not know how the application of Section 4 on GIs and the designation of origin will work out for businesses in Northern Ireland by comparison with the rest of the UK in its trade agreements with CPTPP countries, nor do we know how it will affect businesses in respect of internal UK trade west to east. I therefore suggest that it is fair and proportionate to require such a review as I propose in Amendment 36—with a new clause after Clause 5—to assess the impact of EU legislation relating to geographical indications and conformity assessment of goods listed in Annexe 2 to the Windsor Framework and to assess the impact of Northern Ireland being subject to different GIs from those in the rest of the UK. Although the Minister made a fair point about the timing of such reviews in general, might he remain open to a shorter period of regular reviews for the assessment of the impact of EU legislation? This would not be a demanding exercise, given the proportionately small size of the economy.
It is important that the questions raised about the comparative impact of EU legislation on GIs and the conformity assessment of goods are a matter not of speculation but of fact, in so far as it can be established. We pride ourselves on consulting widely before laws are made, commissioning assessments on a range of areas potentially affected and measuring and reviewing the impact of a law once it is in operation. If Northern Ireland is to remain under EU law—itself a matter of some concern—it matters for Northern Ireland’s overseas trade, the smooth functioning of the internal UK market and the wider economy there that we have scope for such a review.
My Amendment 37 to Clause 6 is for the purpose of making it clear in the Bill that the arrangements for designation of origin and GIs extend to but do not apply to Northern Ireland. I suggest to my noble friend that inserting this at the end of Clause 6 would make for transparency and clarity and would remove the danger of appearing to brush under the carpet the non-application of arrangements in Clause 4 to Northern Ireland. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for her Amendments 36 and 37. I can assure her that exporters in Northern Ireland will benefit from CPTPP in the same way as exporters across the United Kingdom. It is also right that the people of Northern Ireland have a say in how EU laws apply in Northern Ireland. I would be delighted to have further discussions with her; this amendment was tabled quite late in the day, I am afraid, so I would like to explore further and see whether there are any nuances I could assist her with to give her a degree of comfort about how the CPTPP will apply to the whole United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his reply and I look forward very much to discussions. It is important that since the Bill includes exceptions, we should include this exception as well, and it should be clear in the Bill what is proposed and what is not, if only to give reassurance to the different parts of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, it is rather difficult to find all the information gathered together. We have reviews of the arrangements under the CPTPP as they apply to members, and we have arrangements under the Windsor Framework as it applies to those parties. However, it would also be helpful to have some potential for considering the arrangements as they specifically affect Northern Ireland, which is an exception to the arrangements for GIs and conformity assessments under the CPTPP and therefore appears to be in limbo. I look forward to discussing these points, I thank my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Message from the King
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Chamberlain (Lord Parker of Minsmere)
My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from His Majesty the King, signed by his own hand. The message is as follows:
“I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament”.
AI-generated Public Services
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure citizens are not excluded from accessing AI-generated public services.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point, because the shift online and the use of AI are irreversible. They offer substantial opportunities, but problems could arise for some disadvantaged groups. That is why departments are required, by the Government’s service standard, to provide support via alternative channels for all their online services. Our road map for digital and data, updated on 29 November, focuses on enabling the confident and responsible use of AI to improve efficiency and services.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that, but the latest Ofcom study of internet use in the UK showed that 7% of people have no access at all and 18% have access solely via their smartphone. That is fine for most tasks, but less helpful when filling out complex forms or seeking support. The ambition of providing better public services through a digital revolution is a good one; however, what works for most people will not work for everybody, so what is being done to ensure that this small but important group, who are being left behind when attempting to access essential public services, can access them in the future? If they cannot, we will not have a universal service.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
This of course is why the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has affordable access to public services, whether online or offline. Departments are required, by the service standard, to provide support via alternative channels for all their online services to all users, including the disabled. That can be by phone, through face-to-face meetings, by letter or via web chat, which is important for the unsighted. The system of assessments is co-ordinated by the CDDO in the Cabinet Office, and these requirements cannot go on to GOV.UK without assurance secured.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests, as set out in the register. Does my noble friend agree that, wherever AI is used in public services, it should be labelled as such, so that everybody is aware of that fact? Similarly, wherever public citizen data is used, we should decide whether that is through opt-in or opt-out means. Further, public trust is essential to all deployments of new technology, including AI. Does my noble friend agree that one of the best ways to deliver public trust is to ensure that services are accessible and inclusive by design?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I very much agree that, to ensure public trust, you want services that are accessible by design. Coming from the retail sector, I have a slightly less rosy view of labelling. Like earlier data changes, AI is part of a continuum of technological change. The key thing is to have proper arrangements, such as, for example, the AI Safety Institute, which we have now set up following the Prime Minister’s AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park with international partners. This is to make sure that we are aware of what is happening, because there are opportunities as well as risks to AI. I have a whole list of opportunities, which we can go through, but I would like to hear some more questions.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will follow up the Minister’s previous answer. The public sector can benefit from many kinds of artificial intelligence that are a long way from the image of a killer robot threat to mankind, which often features heavily in the public debate. AI can improve hospital bed management, care worker rostering, public procurement and many other dull but very valuable tasks. Does the Minister share my concern that the killer robot narrative may overshadow the adoption of these much less controversial AI systems? What are the Government doing to encourage and accelerate their deployment?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not think that list is dull. I have other examples, such as the world-leading child abuse image database, which the Home Office is working on. My son, as a detective in the Met, thinks it will be a marvellous opportunity to make the police’s job easier and less awful. The noble Lord is right that the robot vision has to be moderated by an understanding of the usefulness of AI on many things, such as conversational front ends to public services on GOV.UK. These things will make life easier and more accessible, which is why it is good that we are debating them and can reassure people. Of course there are fears, which is one of the reasons why we are working on guidance on frontier AI—that is in the pipeline.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, we know from the Post Office Horizon scandal that the Post Office itself, the prosecuting authorities, the courts and God knows how many hundreds of lawyers were, for years, unable to identify failure, including in the computer system. What confidence can we have that the Department for Work and Pensions has people able to tell if the data that informed AI had a bias in it which caused it constantly to be making mistakes? Do we have people trained to do that? I am not confident that they even exist. I am just picking this example out of the sky.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree that the Post Office scandal was one of the most awful. It is good that we now have a proper process for moving forward on it, even if it is far too late. To deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, I can say that we are setting up the AI Safety Institute and a hub in the Cabinet Office, bringing in experts from outside. The idea is that they can help across the board with these issues. Some of the uses of AI, such as with fraud at Companies House and the DWP, can be very useful. The noble Lord is right in that we need to look at the dangers as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly said, we have to make sure that we look at the opportunities. We think that, as regards public sector productivity, costs could be reduced by about £5 billion a year through the sensible use of AI on the kinds of things that we have been debating.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I too am optimistic about AI, but I am also concerned about leaving people behind. I refer my noble friend to the report about digital exclusion published earlier this year by the Communications and Digital Select Committee, which I chair. It painted quite a stark picture. It showed how much more complex this challenge is becoming because of the way in which technology is developing at pace. I am sad to report that we found that the Government’s strategy for dealing with exclusion was not good enough. Will my noble friend revisit that report? Will she also explore one way forward—by looking at a joint venture with the banking sector? It has long promised to have banking hubs in towns. These could also become digital hubs where people could go to learn, and for assistance and advice as to how to get on to digital services in the way in which we need them to do.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her report, which I have just picked up for my Christmas reading. It has been rather influential within the system. I do not know if my noble friend is aware of the cross-Whitehall ministerial group chaired by the new Minister for Technology, Saqib Bhatti MP. It will certainly look at how the digitally excluded can be helped in hubs in different ways. The library network already exists. I have always thought that this is very useful in communities. I have collaborated with bank expertise on fraud—which is my area of responsibility. I am grateful for the work of her committee. I will certainly take her point away.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, was the noble Baroness briefed on a question which I asked on the last occasion when this topic came up? I asked if the Government were looking at developments with Paradot. The Minister who was answering did not know anything about it. Paradot is an online buddy. I have a therapist friend who believes he will be out of business in five years’ time because of the way in which this is developing. If this kind of change takes place, it will have a massive impact on what will happen in the public service.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. The honest truth is that I was not aware of his intervention. Perhaps I can go away and get back to him on another occasion. This sounds a very interesting point and issue.
Building Repairs: VAT
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the sustainability and quality of existing buildings, including by cutting value added tax to incentivise building repairs and maintenance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the sustainability of existing buildings. The Autumn Statement expanded the current zero rating of VAT on the installation of qualifying energy-saving materials in homes until March 2027. This relief, worth more than £1 billion, now also includes additional technologies and extends to buildings used for charitable purposes. Additionally, the Government are investing £12 billion in Help to Heat schemes to ensure that homes are warmer and cheaper to heat.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I declare my interest as the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing. I thank the Minister for her Answer. Would she not agree that, as a point of principle, it is preferable to incentivise restoring and renewing buildings which already exist, rather than purely incentivising new building? The present system encourages new build over reuse. While it is clear that we need more housing in particular, this does not encourage a culture of sustainability. The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme has been a great help for certain kinds of buildings, but it is only for places of worship, it is due to expire in 2025 and it requires considerable administration. Now that the UK has left the EU, the rate of VAT on repairs is in the gift of His Majesty’s Government. Will they commit to the principle of sustainability by undertaking a review of the potential benefits of a lower rate of VAT on repairs?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The reality is that we need both to restore and repair existing buildings and to encourage new build to address our housing supply issues. We have a reduced 5% rate of VAT for renovation works on residential properties, including the conversion of buildings from one residential use to another; on conversions from commercial to residential; and on the renovation of properties which have been empty for two years or more prior to renovation work. We are looking carefully at this issue. Since we left the EU, we have had requests for relief totalling about £50 billion across different forms of VAT. This request needs to be seen in the context of that bigger figure.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Churches Trust and of the Lincolnshire Churches Trust, and one who has been a churchwarden for 36 years. It really is crucial that the Government recognise that the most important group of historic buildings in our country are our parish churches and give them some assistance. The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme is coming to an end, as my friend the right reverend Prelate said, and we do not wish to see the parish churches of England crumbling into decay.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely recognise the points that my noble friend is making, but the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme is making a real difference to churches, as recognised by the right reverend Prelate. It gives grants covering the VAT on repairs of over £1,000 to listed buildings used as places of worship. It is not coming to an end; it runs until the end of March 2025. Of course, any decisions for the spending review period after that will come in due course.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, have the Government undertaken a cost assessment of the number of schools that have asbestos in them and that are also affected by RAAC? They need replacing, because the children in these schools are currently at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres, and the same applies to many hospital buildings. Has there been a comparison of the costs of renovation versus replacement for these public buildings?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Both the Department of Health and the Department for Education are taking forward very careful programmes to address the issue of RAAC. As part of that, I am sure they will consider the most cost-effective way of addressing those issues. My noble friend Lady Barran is working very closely on the schools issue, to ensure that all schools affected by RAAC have it removed or remediated as soon as possible.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister spare a thought for the small but significant number of people who live very modestly in listed buildings? I have to declare an interest, being one of those people. I live in a very small house which happens to be listed, in a conservation area. The business of repairing and maintaining it is extremely expensive and very difficult to achieve, partly because the planning system does not co-operate on very small interventions which could make a significant difference—for instance, insulation. What are the Government doing to help this situation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I acknowledge the point that the noble Baroness has made. We are doing two things in this area. We have updated the National Planning Policy Framework so that, in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give significant weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low-carbon heating improvements to existing buildings. Specifically on the practical planning barriers that households can face when they are in conservation areas or listed buildings, in our energy security strategy, published last year, we committed to reviewing the barriers that people in such buildings face. That review is under way and I believe that the outcome will be published shortly.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, there is plenty of time. It is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have relevant interests recorded in the register. I want to turn our attention to people’s homes. Some 20 years ago, Kirklees Council offered free loft and cavity wall insulation to every home, regardless of tenure. It was largely funded by energy companies, and 100,000 homes benefited from that scheme. Will the Government learn from that pioneering scheme and consider its introduction across the country in order to achieve the COP 28 agreement?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we learn from all successful schemes in this area, and you will see similar provisions in our current schemes, including the contribution of energy companies to the cost of improving insulation for households. We have a number of different schemes. They tend to focus, at the initial stage, on those on lower incomes who will most benefit from the reduced bills that improved energy efficiency will bring, but as we move towards achieving our net-zero targets, we will need to have the whole country covered. The expansion of our schemes takes it further—for example, the extended discount on heat pumps that we announced earlier this year.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with all homes to be highly energy efficient by 2025, with low-carbon heating and zero carbon, what estimate have the Government made of the cost of this for social housing, which is likely to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds for each local authority and registered providers, at a time when the cost of living crisis means rent increases are unlikely to be able to meet these costs?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not have a figure for the overall cost, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right that it will be important for social housing to help make the transition. A lot of our early support has focused on this housing stock—for example, through the social housing decarbonisation fund—because local authorities will need support to take these measures and because the benefits of greater energy efficiency and lower bills need to be targeted at lower income households first.
Lord Swire (Con)
They tried to silence me.
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right to raise this issue again, and we should continue to raise it. The Government hid for years behind the fig leaf of the EU, saying they were unable to vary the rate of VAT. We are now out of the EU and this is the time to look at that. If the Government are serious about reusing and refurbishing our stock of older properties, they should look again. We are not asking for any kind of VAT reduction; we are looking for parity. I do not understand the intellectual argument for two rates of VAT—one which clearly discriminates against the built heritage sector. On that subject, I just say to my noble friend that, if she talks to anybody in the heritage sector, as I am sure she does, she will find that the backlog of repairs because of this pernicious rate of VAT is now extremely concerning.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I say to my noble friend that we are taking advantage of the flexibilities we have since leaving the EU in reducing rates of VAT. We have announced that the installation of qualifying energy-saving materials in residential accommodation has a zero rate of VAT until March 2027. This support is worth over £1 billion and will help households and charities improve their energy efficiency in buildings and reduce carbon emissions. As I said earlier, we get requests to reduce the rate of VAT across a number of different areas, and we consider them very carefully, but they have to be considered in the context of how much revenue VAT raises. As I said, the total cost of requests across different areas has totalled some £50 billion since we have left the EU.
Levelling Up: North-east England
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their levelling-up priorities for the North East of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, we are giving people in the north-east the tools needed to shape a better future. Next year the north-east will become the first region fully covered by mayoral combined authorities. These mayors will have direct control over long-term investment funds totalling £1.85 billion. Other regeneration priorities are also being delivered by locally led town boards, with £765 million of funding allocated to projects across the north-east.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and I welcome the creation of an elected mayor to represent most of the area of the north-east, which is a big step forward for devolution. But the Government’s levelling-up policies have been rightly criticised by the Commons Select Committee and others for simply giving out bits and pieces of money, often as a result of competitive bids, and sometimes seemingly favouring areas where the Government have political friends, rather than addressing the areas of real need. Why can there not be—and why has there not been—an overall programme for the north-east, involving all relevant government departments, to deal with the transport needs, business and investment needs, health inequalities, the woeful shortfall in local government funding, and many other areas? An overall approach is what has been needed.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the north-east devolution deal will help deliver that overall approach but put its delivery in the hands of local leaders and an elected mayor. When it comes to competitive bids, we have heard feedback from many local areas and that is why the third round of the levelling up fund was not allocated using competitive bids. We have also set out principles, going forward, in our local government funding simplification plan. Finally, on which areas have benefited from funding from this Government, under the levelling up funds the north-east has received the highest allocation per capita—quite rightly, as it reflects the need in the north-east.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is the Minister aware that, in spite of all the Government’s levelling-up efforts, over Christmas there will be 140,000 children and 300,000 people in temporary accommodation? This has gone up by 14% in the last year, according to Shelter and the Big Issue. What can the Minister say about that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am aware of the figures that the noble Lord cites, and I think it is a tragedy. The Government are committed to doing all we can to address it. We have seen a real increase in pressure on the private rented sector over the past year, which leads to increases in people in temporary accommodation. At the Autumn Statement, we announced further funding towards tackling homelessness to help address this. We also announced that the local housing allowance will be increased to the 30th percentile, which will help address those cost pressures in the private rented sector, so we are doing a lot to try to address this issue.
Lord Beith (LD)
When the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of HS2, he made promises that there would be transport improvements for the north-east, affecting both rail capacity on the east coast main line and the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle. Given the number of broken promises we have had over the last 50 years on these subjects, will they happen?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the decision not to press ahead with the final leg of HS2 has released a huge amount of money for people’s priorities across the north of England when it comes to investing in transport. Where that investment will be made will be influenced and led by local leaders and their priorities, working closely with government. It is in their hands as to where we should best allocate this funding.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, a recent report by the Centre for Ageing Better said that the north-east has the largest proportion of older people in poor health, with three in 10 people aged 50 to 64 in poor health, compared with one in five in the south-east. Since 2010 the Government have cut £15 billion from local authority budgets. What is the progress in levelling up regional equalities to ensure that the quality of someone’s later life will not remain a postcode lottery? Is it not the case that the Government embarked on creating a northern powerhouse but instead have delivered a northern poorhouse?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the levelling-up missions encompass a wide range of outcomes that we are seeking to address, including reducing health inequalities. That is why we are investing further money both in our health service and in social care, including additional grant money made available to local councils this year and next. It is a long-term transformation fund but we will be held accountable, reporting against those missions annually until 2030.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been extremely generous to Tees Valley with the infrastructure and other funding. Will my noble friend look equally generously on North Yorkshire, 75% of whose budget is going towards the elderly, and even more towards childcare? We need to restore the balance between Tees Valley and other rural areas, such as North Yorkshire, in the available funding.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to be able to take forward yesterday the statutory instrument that will create the combined authority and mayoral authority for York and North Yorkshire. It represents a huge opportunity for the area in terms of investment and local leaders taking forward their priorities. My noble friend is absolutely right that it is a different area with a more rural constituency, and I think it has the opportunity to show how devolution and levelling up can work across the country, whether you are in a rural or an urban area.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, both made a point about the centrality of regenerating transport links in the north of England in order to help the growth of the economy and therefore levelling up. Is the Minister aware that it can take up to four and a half hours to travel by train from Newcastle to Liverpool? Is she aware that over the summer the Transport Minister, Huw Merriman, kindly came on a site visit to look at the so-called Hellifield link, which would create a new cross-Pennine east-west link—a track that is already there but needs to be revitalised? Given what the Prime Minister said in Manchester about the importance of regenerating the economy in the north based on its transport links, can the Minister find out from Mr Merriman what progress has been made on that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am very happy to undertake to write to my honourable friend and find out about progress on that. It brings us back to the broader point from the difficult decision not to proceed with the last leg of HS2. That has freed up billions of pounds for investment that will make a difference to more people’s lives, and faster, across the whole north of England.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I refer the Minister to the recently published report by PwC, its Green Jobs Barometer, which says that the number of green jobs advertised has fallen sharply in the last year in the north-east, and that London and the south-east continue to dominate the total number of green jobs advertised. If the Government are to narrow the gap through levelling up, what action will they take to promote green jobs in parts of the country outside London and the south-east?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the north-east has huge potential when it comes to green jobs and industries, and that has been a real focus of government investment in the north-east, along with leaders there. We announced the investment zone for the north-east last month. That is all focused on advanced manufacturing, green industries and the creation of jobs there. It is backed by a huge amount of government funding, and we have already seen great results from it. I think we will see an increase in green jobs in the north-east, as well as across the rest of the country.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the best things about the north-east of England is that you are almost in Scotland? However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, when you get to the A1 in the north-east of England, it narrows down almost to a country lane—to a single-file road. Will the Minister answer the noble Lord’s question? When is it going to be dualled? That will be a symbol of Scotland and England remaining part of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord. I do not have a date for him on when that project will be completed. Essential for improvements to transport across the north of England and in the north-east is the extra funding that will be made available for it through the cancellation of the final leg of HS2.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I say to my noble friend the Minister not to lose sight of the importance of culture in levelling up. The north has been extraordinarily successful. I declare an interest as a trustee of Tate; Tate Liverpool is undergoing a huge regeneration. There is also the refurbishment of Manchester Museum and the transformation of Newcastle and Gateshead through culture. Will the Minister assure me that in her new brief she puts culture at the centre when she is thinking about levelling up?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. When we talk about levelling up, we talk about pride of place, for example. Culture can be an incredibly important part of that. In recent levelling-up funding, we have taken steps to ensure that culture specifically is considered in the allocation of those funds.
Vector-borne Diseases
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of vector-borne diseases, including dengue fever and West Nile virus, becoming established in the United Kingdom, as outlined in the report Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK published by the UK Health Security Agency on 11 December.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that an assessment has been completed. The Health Effects of Climate Change report shows the risks to the UK from vector-borne diseases, which are more likely in a warming climate. Working across government, the UK Health Security Agency’s extensive surveillance, including of vectors, animals, and humans, seeks to mitigate the risk of these diseases by minimising the likelihood of exotic vectors establishing, and by managing imported and locally acquired human cases.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. If we are to minimise the impact of mosquito-borne diseases, we need, with some urgency, to develop a new generation of insecticides and other preventive measures for vector control. What long-term plans and support do His Majesty’s Government have to support product development partnerships, so we can minimise the impact of mosquito-borne diseases, whether in sub-Saharan Africa today, or in this country by 2050?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I note that Health Ministers get asked Foreign Office questions, and Foreign Office Ministers get health questions. However, the right reverend Prelate raises a very good point. It is a very topical issue. The UK is a world leader in life sciences, and British science is at the cutting edge of fighting malaria. Our support to public/private product development partnerships has helped saved many lives. This includes support to the Liverpool-based Innovative Vector Control Consortium to develop novel bed nets and next-generation insecticides to overcome the threat of insecticide resistance. Since 2017, we have provided £44 million to develop new insecticides to prevent vector transmission of malaria and other vector-borne diseases. IVCC has developed many ground-breaking technologies, including a novel type of bed net that kills mosquitoes’ resistance to traditional insecticides.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, which vector-borne diseases are prevalent in the UK, and what are the Government doing to address this risk to public health?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good point. Many of your Lordships will know that the primary vector-borne disease in the UK is currently Lyme disease. However, with climate change, we are likely to see conditions suitable for the establishment of invasive mosquitoes that are currently becoming established in other parts of Europe. These mosquitoes, as well as other species likely to be impacted by flooding, may increase the incidence of mosquito biting. In a warming climate, vector-borne diseases such as dengue and West Nile virus, which currently occur in warmer parts of Europe, will become more likely in the UK. We need to stay vigilant as these diseases may or may not occur in the UK.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but is he not aware that insecticides kill insects, not just mosquitoes, and are therefore quite poisonous to the environment? Is he aware of the highly successful research going on at Imperial College London with my colleagues, where they are enabling sterilised mosquitoes to be bred, so that eventually we will have mosquitoes that will not be able to breed? That would be a massive advance for the whole world, as it is starting to take effect as of now.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was not aware of what is going on at Imperial College, but it would be very helpful to the world if mosquitoes could stop spreading their diseases.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, vector-borne diseases are not only about humans; they are also about animals. We have a current outbreak of bluetongue disease in the south of England, which is carried by midges originally coming from South Africa. What assessment have the Government made of this particular outbreak?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of the bluetongue outbreak, but the Government do a significant amount of research and checking at ports in the United Kingdom when we import livestock and other things. We monitor that, but I do not know about the specific case of bluetongue and I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Health Security Agency report warns that London may already be suitable for the survival of the kinds of mosquitoes that spread diseases. This is very worrying for anyone who lives here and experiences—with alarming regularity—the widespread areas of standing water that are caused by the poor drainage system. Given this health risk, will the Minister join the effort to improve the performance of Thames Water, a company that seems more interested in financial engineering than hydraulic engineering? It seems that our future health depends on the willingness of this Government to “kick water butt”.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord for that. The question on Thames Water is for a different department, but I agree that all water companies need to be aware of what is happening with global warming, specifically in terms of water-borne diseases and mosquitoes. The noble Lord is right: the climate modelling suggests it will affect London and the south-east. However, it will not be just the south-east: these mosquitoes could come in at any port in the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, so we have to be vigilant to make sure that these mosquitoes do not come in via vehicles.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, Lyme disease is on the increase. I know that in Scotland, when walking, I now have to take tick prevention measures that I never had to worry about 10 or 15 years ago. Indeed, the website of Mountaineering Scotland recorded that scientists had noted 800,000 ticks in just a short stretch of thick vegetation at the side of a path. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate how this intensifying risk, along with other existing UK disease-bearing vectors—because they are there—are being monitored across the UK? Very particularly, can he confirm that there is close collaboration with the devolved nations?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend is exactly right. When you go walking in the UK, not just in Scotland, it is always advisable to take insect repellent. The UKHSA will collaborate, and indeed is collaborating, with UK government departments and devolved Governments to make sure that the evidence emerging across the United Kingdom can be collected, because, other than mosquitoes, ticks bring diseases.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, as long ago as 2016, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee produced a report on the genetic modification of insects for protection of crops, and its possible application, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has already mentioned, to vector-borne diseases in humans. The only start-up company following research, which was based in Oxford, had to move to California because of lack of support. It now does field trials, which are the important part of testing any research that is carried out, to see if something is effective and to set a benchmark. The field trials are carried out in Brazil and other countries. With the threat of further insect-borne diseases such as dengue, chikungunya and Zika, is in not time that we invested more money in research to investigate how we can reduce the harm caused by vector-borne diseases?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The Government are doing exactly that and investing significantly into research. In terms of any private sector business that is looking into this, they should please contact me or the government department and we will work with them. If there is any research and development that we are not aware of, we are very keen to hear about it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the analysis in the UKSA report referred to by the right reverend Prelate uses a high-end global warming scenario to represent a worst-case situation without mitigation and adaptation. Could the Minister advise how government planning is based on other scenarios at different rates of climate change? How are the agreements at the recent COP 28, and previously, expected to affect the conditions in which vector-borne diseases proliferate?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The short answer to that is that we cannot be sure. A noble Lord asked about London and the south-east: that is a worst-case scenario. It is predicted to increase in the second half of the 21st century. As I have said previously, we need to monitor it in 2023 and onwards. Certainly, the south of England is warmer than the north and north-west of England; we just need to monitor it. These are worst-case scenarios of these diseases coming into the country. It is right and proper that we monitor them, and that we monitor them at the ports of entry—but it is a worst-case scenario and it may or may not happen this century.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The interchange today has recognised and made clear the health risks to this country through climate change—although of course we should remember that the main health risks are to far poorer countries than our own. The Minister said several times that other departments were involved. Has not the discussion today illustrated how wide the effects of climate change go and how they go into areas of security and health—far wider than is sometimes recognised purely in terms of climate or weather? Is the Minister confident that we have the right machinery of government, centrally and at the highest level, to assess the varied risks of climate change to this country and to manage them appropriately?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her expertise and question. This Question involves three government departments: Defra, the Foreign Office and the Health Department. We, as a country, do not stand alone; we work with our partners in Europe. For example, there was a recent outbreak of these diseases in Paris and the south of France. We work with our counterparts in various European countries, so I am confident that the United Kingdom is very well placed to work in a co-ordinated way. As I referred to in a previous answer, we are world-beating in life sciences, so we are very well placed, and the Government and the various government departments involved are very on the ball on this.
Fire Safety Regulations and Guidance
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Goddard of Stockport
That this House takes note of the current state of fire safety regulations in England and the case for a new integrated review to update fire safety guidance.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, one of the most active groups in Westminster. It is chaired by Bob Blackman CBE MP, following the late Sir David Amess MP, who noble Lords will remember was horrifically murdered two years ago while undertaking his constituency work. He was the chair of the APPG for more than 20 years.
I was elected as a local councillor in Stockport in 1990. From 1992 onwards, I was a member of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority for more than 20 years, off and on. I was inspired by officers in that authority, including people such as Barry Dixon and Steve McGuirk, who have been excellent officers dedicated to fire prevention and safety. I am both honoured yet frustrated to lead this debate.
To understand the fears and concerns of the APPG and the fire industry, the House needs to understand the problems. I will try to encapsulate them in the next 10 minutes or so. The two government departments principally involved in fire are the Home Office, essentially for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) order and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for building safety, building regulations and housing, which have been moved to the Building Safety Regulator and the Health and Safety Executive. Initially, fire was the responsibility of the Home Office, but it was transferred to the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It was then transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, followed by the Department for Communities and Local Government and then the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The latter has majority oversight of building and fire safety, including building regulations. As noble Lords can see, the number of departments grows as we progress over time.
I can think of no better place to start this debate than with the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster and the opening statement of the second stage by Jason Beer KC, who was representing the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. He said that the Government apologise for failures in the lead-up to the Grenfell Tower fire, admitting to errors and missed opportunities that helped to create
“an environment in which such a tragedy was possible”.
He told the public inquiry into the disaster that the department was “deeply sorry” and conceded that they did not know how building regulations had failed to be applied on the ground. He said that the system failed. Those admissions were made in his opening statement to the final stage of the public inquiry that investigated the role of dozens of government figures from junior officers to former Ministers. The department also admitted that it failed properly to learn lessons from previous fires in high-rise blocks, including the 2009 cladding blaze at Lakanal House in Southwark, where six people died.
Ironically, the then chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, the late Sir David Amess MP, wrote 21 letters to successive Ministers pleading with them to bring forward a few of the life-changing, critical safety matters outlined by the coroner before the planned three-year or four-year review into regulations; they were all refused. Following the tragic loss of 72 lives in the Grenfell Tower, Sir David made the public statement that, had Ministers listened to him, that
“fire … would not have happened”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/17; col. 334.]
It was not just one Minister; it was a succession of Ministers.
The APPG’s fire adviser and administrative secretary, Ronnie King OBE, provided a 34,000-word statement and approaching 100 exhibits to the Grenfell public inquiry following a four-hour interview and follow-up meetings with the legal team, which was extensively quoted in the evidence. That was after a four-hour interview under caution with the Metropolitan Police.
As noble Lords are aware, stage two of the Grenfell inquiry finished in October 2022. In his closing statement, the lead counsel to the inquiry, Richard Millett KC, said that many firms giving evidence at the Grenfell inquiry indulged in a
“merry-go-round of buck-passing”
to protect their legal positions. He said that it was regrettable that many of,
“those responsible for the buildings and the building environment as it was on the night of the fire sought to exculpate themselves and to pin the blame on others”.
He said, however, that the firms then blamed
“the professionals in the design team for not reading the marketing leaflets”
which required a full system fitting test before the block of flats was built.
The brief from the Home Office to Dame Judith Hackitt was clear that she should undertake an independent review of building and, in particular, fire safety regulations. Dame Judith’s recommendations included a new regulatory framework to address those weaknesses. The overriding theme was to move towards an outcome-based approach to building safety, where industries take responsibility for their own actions. The key proposals included a new joint competent authority, comprised of local authority building standards, fire and rescue authorities and the Health and Safety Executive, to oversee the management and risk of high-rise residential buildings.
A set of rigorous, demanding roles and responsibilities for duty holders was introduced to give stronger focus on building safety and a single, more streamlined regulatory route to oversee standards across the board and to determine where enforcement can and should take place. Dame Judith established six work groups to consider those elements, including how to build effect regulations to make homes safer for people. Some of those groups had 10 people. Significantly, not one All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group adviser was selected for to serve on any of those groups, despite their enormous wealth of experience in the fire industry.
I now turn to the overlap of grey areas in government departments and will explain why we think this needs to be looked at. I will give a couple of examples of the fragmentation across departments and the need for greater integration, beginning with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The All-Party Parliamentary Group had a second meeting with the Minister only yesterday—quite surprisingly, as the debate is today. That was because of frequent changes in the secretarial staff in the department, but I suspect that it was not helped by the number of government reshuffles. It must be said that the Minister was very amiable and helpful; he attended the meeting. He assured me that he was taking a horizon-scanning approach to fire safety, and I wait to see what that means.
I point out that since Grenfell the department has taken numerous policy decisions relating to tall blocks of flats, such as setting a height threshold of 11 metres, at which new-build blocks must have automatic fire sprinklers and protection, removing the dangerous Class O certification from Building Regulations Approved Document B. It also took the immediate decision to remove ACM combustible cladding from all existing tower blocks taller than 18 metres and broadened that out for combustible cladding on less tall buildings. It is now working hard to sort out leaseholder issues, but clearly that is more complicated and a debate for another meeting.
The recent Luton Airport multi-storey car park fire followed an earlier fire at Liverpool Arena. A report commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2006, published in 2010, showed the impact that having automatic fire sprinklers would have had on that fire and the earlier fire at the Liverpool Arena in 2017. The report said that tests found that sprinkler systems were effective in controlling developing fires and equally effective at controlling fully developed fires. In addition, without sprinklers, fires are likely to spread from car to car. With sprinklers that is very unlikely. The report found that structural steelwork was not affected by less than 30 minutes’ fire exposure. With sprinklers, the steelwork would have remained unaffected. So why was that not implemented and why did that fire at Luton Airport happen?
The second issue relates to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the charging of lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes inside blocks of flats, where there have been several deaths due to the ferocity of the explosion when a fire takes hold. Most of these e-bikes are being charged in communal areas that are the only exits for the people living in those flats. This matter should be addressed. The Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office are responsible for fighting fires, as well as the Department for Transport which is now involved because of e-bikes. We need clarity about which department has overall responsibility for fire safety.
The third issue is a second staircase in new blocks of flats taller than 18 metres, which was agreed. Second staircases must be built. The Minister has now deferred that decision for further consultation. Why?
The Department for Education produced a revised fire safety design guide for new schools Design for Fire Safety in Schools: Building Bulletin 100 for a public consultation. Two years ago, it received a resounding rejection by the whole of the fire sector including the National Fire Chiefs Council, which still has not had a response. The current BB100, which was prepared with the oversight of the then Schools Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, concluded that all new schools, apart from a few low-risk schools, to be determined by a risk toolkit, would be expected to have automatic fire sprinklers installed. So, every new school should get a sprinkler system. However, the recent Department for Education draft provision reversed that decision and concluded that all schools, apart from a few high-risk schools, will not now get a sprinkler system. The risk toolkit will be scrapped and high-risk schools will be determined by the Department for Education. They include those taller than 11 meters, which are very few; special needs schools, which are now integrated into mainstream schools, and so there are very few such schools; and the sleeping parts of boarding schools—not the whole boarding school, just the sleeping part—and again there are very few.
The department did not do an impact assessment that fire damage to the school has on its children’s attainment levels, until we told it and it had to address it. The department did not provide a compartment size for large single-storey schools before it need fire suppression, and we had to tell it that. In the original guidelines, a school could be half a square mile before any regulations were needed. It has now set the size at 4,000 square meters. The DfE confessed it did not have professional fire safety adviser when we asked to meet the advisers. It is now recruiting a fire service engineer and will meet the group before seeing politicians.
The APPG has had one meeting with the Department for Education in four years, at a time when fire has been high on the agenda with school fires, Covid and the impact on children’s mental health and development. Our children should be in schools interacting and developing. Will the Minister tell us how the DfE can continue to be permitted to manage fire safety, post-Grenfell Tower, with such a poor risk attitude? Following the evidence of asbestos and RAAC concrete in school buildings, it gives me no confidence.
In summary, the APPG and the entire fire industry feel we cannot accept such poor standards. History tells us that with fire, legislation normally follows disasters and subsequent inquiries bring recommendations from the Woolworths fire in Manchester, the King’s Cross disaster, Grenfell Tower and numerous train accidents. This cannot be a coherent way to determine fire safety policy. We must integrate fire in one place, where all the standards and policies will be made and where one person will be held accountable. It needs specialist advisers who will not necessarily tell the Minister what he wants to hear, but what he needs to hear. Will the Minister comment on why ex-police chief constables seem to arrive in this House like London buses, but not one ex-fire chief has ever be ennobled in its history? The experience of 30 or 40 years in that industry, understanding the issues, is to me unfathomable. Sometimes, it is that simple.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I say a sincere thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his timely debate today. Indeed, we were even reminded at COP that 10,000 wildfires throughout the world are causing total devastation. Coming back to the United Kingdom, before I do anything else I pay tribute to all the volunteer firemen who turn out in the middle of the night and then do a another job. They do it instantly. I live in Sandy, where we have a local brigade. I am amazed at the way it runs so smoothly and how volunteers, some of them very senior people in management, will turn up at 3 am and deal with a fire. Secondly, I pay tribute to the London Fire Brigade because it is a very professional organisation. We see in the recent statistics that, partially due to their performance and planning, the number of fires that have been attended to in the UK in the most recent year has dropped from the previous year from, I think, 7,000 to around 5,000. Five thousand is a huge number of fires.
I was particularly prompted to take part today because I live in Bedfordshire and we have a case history now: Luton Airport. I did a little research on that particular situation. Just two months ago, on 10 October, a fire broke out in the car park of Luton Airport’s Terminal 2. It is somewhere I have parked on a number of occasions. The net result of the fire was that the airport was shut down overnight while the emergency services attended the blaze. Hundreds of flights were subsequently cancelled and others severely delayed. What happened? It was not an old car park. It is a pretty new park at Terminal 2. Shortly before 9 pm on 10 October, somehow the fire quickly spread to other floors, and that continued until the early hours of 11 October. Witnesses heard car alarms going off and loud explosions. As a result of the fire, there was a partial structural collapse that has affected the safety of the building. More than 1,400 cars parked there were written off. Just think of the sheer insurance involved in paying off those cars.
As far as I can find out, Bedfordshire police have since confirmed that the initial vehicle involved in the fire was a diesel car—apparently not an electric car. A man in his 30s has been arrested in connection with the fire and was later released on bail, but the police investigation is on-going. As Mr Neil Thompson, the operations director at Luton Airport, said, the car park would need to be fully demolished due to the extent of structural damage. This is a tragedy all round and it raises and re-emphasises the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, in his speech
There are myriad parts of the Government involved in fire safety and we all know some of them: they run from the Home Office to the Building Safety Act 2022, which is really a local authority Act, and the Health and Safety Executive; the Department for Business and Trade has responsibility for lithium-ion batteries and the Department for Transport is apparently looking after scooters and e-bikes. I am not sure why we have to have quite so many departments involved. We certainly need some co-ordination.
We now have two classic case histories. One is the huge tragedy of Grenfell, where it has taken too long to bring the report out. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can confirm that that report will now be published, in the next month or so, and will not be put off even further. Will he also make sure that we do a proper analysis of that second case history at Luton? These fires should not occur, and something is going wrong in the system when they do. I do not want to read in 2024 of a third major tragedy somewhere in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Goddard on securing this important and timely debate. I associate myself with his comments about the late Sir David Amess, who was an absolutely inspirational chair of the All-Party Fire Safety and Rescue Group, of which I am the vice-chair. I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to thank the House of Lords Library, the London Fire Brigade, Chris Waterman and others for their very helpful briefings.
I thought it might be worth starting with a brief reflection of what it is like to be in a fire. In my misspent student days, I was president of the student theatre and on front-of- house duty—luckily, it was a matinee and, luckily, of a fairly esoteric play, so the theatre was not full—when the safety curtain failed after a fire started on stage. I was the person who had to evacuate the audience, as clouds of billowing toxic smoke ran from the stage into the auditorium. It was absolutely terrifying. I am not often pleased when a theatre is not full, but I am really pleased there were not many people there. In the front row, there was a very elderly, 85 year-old academic, who was there to see one of her students in the production. She had real trouble and I ended up having to carry her out of the building. By the time the audience were out, the fire brigade had arrived and everything then proceeded as you would like.
It is rare for a safety curtain to fail but, what hit me then, and has remained with me for the rest of my life, was how fire is not the only danger. Smoke is a real problem; as many people die from smoke inhalation as they do from the direct effects of the fire. I therefore acknowledge the extraordinary work of our firefighters—men and women who, day after day, run towards fire and many other dangerous situations. It is a hard calling and we have to thank them for their selflessness and care in a very testing work field.
I want to add another thing. It is well known that we have been training Ukrainian service men and women with our Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom, since Putin invaded Ukraine 18 months ago. What is less known is that our fire services and firefighters have run convoys of fire safety vehicles and kit to Ukraine, which has helped its people to respond as their own needs for fire safety and rescue have monumentally increased. I would very much like to see the scheme that is used in the Ministry of Defence also operating for the five service, because we forget that the effect of bombing puts a very particular burden on fire safety and rescue.
Grenfell stands as a marker for failure and we need to remember the victims: 72 killed and many more injured. Many of the reviews and changes in legislation outlined by my noble friend since 14 June 2017 have identified the problems that need addressing. There is no doubt that some progress has been made, but, as we are already hearing in this debate, there are still some gaping holes. However, let us just note that progress. There is no doubt that the current fire safety regulations have played a vital role in reducing fires, fire deaths and injuries over the years.
We know that there is still much to do. One of the most urgent things that has not been discussed so far is the updating of Approved Document B, part of the building regulations guidance. It is very out of date. Not one of the government fire-risk assessment guides has been revised since its publication in 2006. Especially worrying is the lack of clear guidance on evacuation lifts and multiple staircases in high-rise buildings. At the All-Party Fire Safety and Rescue Group, we have been chasing this with Ministers since I joined it in 2011, but it is always just around the corner. I understand why, post-Grenfell, there had to be a pause, given the inquiry, Judith Hackitt’s report and government departments having to decide what their priorities are. However, 2017 is six years ago and the time must come for it to be published. I ask the Minister: when can we expect to see it?
There is a specific need for guidance for the disabled and the vulnerable. The Minister’s predecessors wavered on personal emergency evacuation plans, known as PEEPs, claiming they were too hard to do in a high-rise block. But 40% of the disabled residents in Grenfell died that night. That is shocking. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what progress there is on keeping disabled residents safe in high-rise flats?
PEEPs are also important for other reasons. We need them in every environment in which disabled and vulnerable people move around. I was in Portcullis House about five years ago when the fire alarm started going off. My PEEP is for the House of Lords; as an involved member of the public in Portcullis House, I have to know my own way round it. My problem was that nobody knew what to do once the refuge had been closed off. I was literally on my own; I had gone where I was told to and did not know how I could contact people. I am really grateful to the House authorities because, as a result of my experience, they have changed the arrangements in Portcullis House. They now ask people when they are organising their PEEPs where they are likely to travel in the building. However, this is unusual. I went to a conference held earlier this year—ironically, it was the fire conference—and four days beforehand, I was asked to fill in a PEEP before I had ever been to the building and to return it before I arrived. Training is absolutely vital, because disabled people and vulnerable people are the most vulnerable.
I turn briefly to sprinklers, already well covered by my noble friend Lord Goddard. It is well documented that sprinklers play a significant role, but I am appalled that the Government are not considering adding them automatically to new builds, or even new parts of buildings, particularly for the disabled and the vulnerable. This includes new care homes, hospitals and schools. Schools are a particularly sore point. As my noble friend outlined, we have had a real problem in our APPG when trying to get the Department for Education to engage. In 2003, when I was the chair of governors of a primary school that was built in the 1960s, a young arsonist set it afire. It had RAAC, as we now know. We did not also know, until it burned down, that the entire structure of the building was reliant on the windows, and when they caved in the entire building started to fall afterwards. In the new building that went up, we were not permitted to have sprinklers.
The change in the schools landscape in the past 10 years worries me. When our school burned down, we still had a local education authority that was responsible for ensuring that alternative provision was made as soon as possible. Local authorities no longer have the resources for that. Academy chains are finding it really difficult to find alternative provision when they are affected by fire. The other reason we need sprinklers is because children need continuity in their education. It can take far too long to replace what is lost.
I turn now to the emerging, life-threatening danger that is lithium batteries. I thank both my noble friend Lord Goddard and the noble Lord, Lord, Naseby, for their comments, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that there was a fire at Bristol Airport last week. Luckily, unlike the Luton fire, it was not in a multi-storey but in an open-plan area. Already, fire service people in the area are saying that the fire was made much worse by lithium battery cars which caught fire—not that they were the cause of the fire, but the fire is so intense that it is dangerous.
There are people dying regularly as a result of lithium fires. In July, in Cambridge a mother and her two small children died in a fire in a low block of flats. It is thought that an e-bike was being charged in the flat, but, as my noble friend Lord Goddard, said, in too many places, it is possible to use power points in common-part areas, and a number of fires have been caused like that. A firefighter described what happens when a lithium battery catches fire. It is not like any other fire you have seen. It is like a phosphorus fire, it is 1,000 degrees centigrade, it is a complete explosion of fire and it is devastating. To have anything able to be recharged in common parts is appalling.
We need registration for lithium batteries. Part of the problem is that we cannot get different departments to talk to each other. Officers of the all-party group met with Kevin Hollinrake, the Minister for Trade and Enterprise, who covers regulation of batteries, and he absolutely understands the issue. But until every government department looks at the use of batteries in whatever area of work it is covering, we will not start to solve this problem.
I want to end on the future. We have already heard about the plethora of government departments, with each having little bits of fire safety to look after. There must be co-ordination across all departments. I will not call for a Minister in Cabinet with overall responsibility for fire, but it is not beyond the wit of government to get people together to start to talk about this, because, at the end of the day, this is about life saving, ensuring the reduction of costs in destruction of buildings, and we need to make changes.
Let me end on a positive note. At the Fire Conference 2023, which I attended, I heard very encouraging dialogues between firefighters, those making provision in the construction industry and specialist fire services. All of them were saying that the Government’s approach at the moment is too complex and too slow. They are very willing, but they need more help from the Government to make the changes that both the Grenfell inquiry and the Judith Hackitt review demanded, if we are to keep people safe in future.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Like her, I am a member of the APPG for Fire Safety and Rescue. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on securing this important debate. Like him, I pay my respects to the secretary of our APPG, Ronnie King, as well as adding my respects to our former chair, Sir David Amess, and our present chair, Bob Blackman.
Although I spent most of my professional life engaged in matters concerning industrial relations and employment law, from time to time I have been involved in matters of fire—including, the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, reminds me—my time three decades ago in the King’s Cross fire inquiry. Since then, I represented the bereaved at the Lakanal House fire inquest and I advised the fire brigade, although I did not represent it, in the Grenfell Tower inquiry.
I shall make only three points in support of all that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have said already. The first point is to do with risk assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, mentioned the extraordinary reversal of policy in relation to the fitting of sprinklers prospectively in schools, which is now confined to special cases only, as he spelled out. I simply cannot understand how any sensible risk assessment could have resulted in that reversal of policy. As a lawyer, it seems to me that the general principles of risk assessment are well established and simple. It is a computation based on three elements: first, the likelihood of the specific risk eventuating; secondly, an assessment of the magnitude of the damage if the risk eventuates; and, thirdly, set against that, the cost or inconvenience of taking the precaution necessary to avoid that risk. These are not scientific matters—some are, but the overall computation is not clearly scientific. There are many questions and many points of judgment and discretion to be taken into account. But the simplicity of the equation in general is straightforward.
When one applies that to the risk of fires in schools, the likelihood of the risk eventuating is well known to be far more frequent in schools—unfortunately, often because of arson—than in many other public buildings. On the magnitude of the damage if the risk eventuates, true, it will not often cause death or even injury, because evacuation is easy and schools often put on fire at night when nobody is present. But that magnitude incorporates the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned a moment ago. It is not simply the cost of replacing the building; it is the disruption to the lives of children and their families and to other educational establishments in setting up alternative education for those children while the building is replaced.
Against that, there is the cost of the precaution to avoid the risk. The fitting of sprinklers prospectively is relatively trivial in the cost of any building. Even retrospectively, it is a minor cost. With the APPG, about 18 months ago, with Sir David Amess in charge, we went on a visit to a block of flats in Stoke-on-Trent to see a multi-storey block which had been retrofitted with sprinklers. The cost was only something between £1,000 and £2,000 per flat, which I do not think is a lot of money. Even retrospectively, these things can be done at reasonable cost.
I ask the Minister whether the relevant department would disclose the methodology for risk assessment that led to this curious reversal in policy, and whether he would accept some kind of peer review by the experts—I do not include myself in this—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, mentioned, are present in the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue.
Secondly, I will raise the question of compartmentation. This is what led to the “stay put” policy adopted by the fire brigades at the Lakanal House fire and the Grenfell Tower fire. I have no doubt that this policy and the issue of compartmentation will be dealt with in the Grenfell report when it emerges. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about the need for that report to be produced as soon as possible, but I am sure he appreciates the magnitude of the task and the extent of the evidence and engineering and fire assessment reports that have been taken into account by that inquiry. It is understandable that it has taken a considerable amount of time to produce the report.
One of the most harrowing experiences of my professional life was in the Lakanal House inquest. Many pieces of horrific evidence were heard, but one of them was the transcript and recording of a phone call made by a young woman resident in one of the flats in Lakanal House to the control centre for the fire brigade, in which she reported smelling fire and seeing smoke and flames; it lasted for 40 minutes until the line went silent. The control operator on the other end was giving her what advice she could and telling her to stay put in accordance with the policy because she would be rescued; unfortunately, she was not.
I felt that tragedy personally; I also felt it was a tragedy for the poor woman who was the call operator dealing with that call—and there were many like it, and many similar calls at Grenfell Tower. The policy of “stay put” depends on the construction principle of compartmentation, which means that the building is so constructed that each housing unit will be able to withstand fire for long enough for the fire brigade to effect a rescue. The problem is that, although Lakanal House and Grenfell Tower were built with that principle in mind, and no doubt were effective when they were built, over years the compartmentation was breached. There were obvious breaches in both cases: the panel under the windows that caught fire in Lakanal House and the cladding that caught fire in Grenfell Tower, with the compartment breached by fire coming through the windows. At Lakanal House, the compartments were defective in many other respects as well: pipes had been driven through the walls and not sealed up properly; and pipes had been boxed in with wooden shuttering, which of course was material for fire to catch hold of.
The whole issue of compartmentation, as a building principle, needs to be looked at again, because it is not good enough to simply have a guarantee that the compartment will withstand fire when it is built. Since the building will be standing for the next 50 or 100 years, there has got to be some guarantee, or some means adopted, to check that the compartment will still withstand fire over the intervening years. Otherwise, fire brigade control room staff are put in this awful position of assuring residents that they must stay put when, in fact, the principle on which that diktat is founded is defective. Can the Minister say something about the protection of compartmentation, or the inspection of compartments, and the assessment of risk when compartments are broken in any way in future?
Thirdly, I will raise the issue of staffing. Recent developments have required increasing numbers of experts in fire safety to make risk assessments and carry out inspections. One of the problems of the increasing inequality of income between the public and private sectors is that the private sector—not surprisingly—is luring away experts whose expertise is needed in the public sector. It is not just a question of salaries; it is also terms and conditions, training and promotion prospects. Can the Minister say something about how this will be addressed in the future? What overall increase in the number of suitably qualified experts will be required and how will they be retained in the public sector?
Finally, I will speak about the fire and rescue services. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, his respect for the heroic men and women who serve in our fire brigades—both the paid and the unpaid. The national salary increase that was awarded to firefighters this year is, of course, most welcome. Can the Minister say something about retention and recruitment, in consequence of that salary increase: whether it is satisfactory at the moment or whether we are losing firefighters? One essential aspect of that salary increase is that it was achieved by national collective bargaining in the fire service—I am sorry, just give me one moment, this is my last sentence. There have been suggestions of the ending of collective bargaining to determine pay, terms and conditions; I wonder whether the Minister is committed to maintaining it?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I will start by thanking my noble friend Lord Goddard for his excellent introduction to this debate, and I support his call for an integrated review of fire services. I also add my name to the tributes to David Amess and to all the very brave firefighters; luckily for me I have never had to call on their services and I hope it never happens, but it is a great comfort to know that they are there for all of us.
With my interests in health and education, I have always been concerned about fire safety in schools, colleges and hospitals Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I am concerned that regulations about the installation of sprinklers have been weakened. We know they can extinguish, or minimise, fires early and enable evacuation and access for the fire services. The London Fire Brigade’s briefing for this debate recommends that all new schools and hospitals, and any new extensions to old ones, as well as care homes, are fitted with sprinklers. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has said how cost-effective retrofit is as well. This strikes me as common sense and cost-effective, given the major danger to pupils, staff and patients when there are major fires, in addition to the disruption to pupils’ education, to parents and to local communities. I agree with my noble friends Lord Goddard and Baroness Brinton in asking the Minister to assure us that all new schools and the so-called 40 new hospitals will all have sprinklers.
The other school safety issue is combustible cladding. In December 2018, the Government banned the use of combustible insulation and cladding on the facades of certain high-rise buildings, but many other types of high-rise buildings remain outside the scope of the ban, including non-residential school buildings. As a result, over 100 school building projects have used combustible facade insulation since December 2018. I am told that, in the past 10 years, 1,003 education building projects will have used combustible facade materials. Will the Government extend the scope of the ban to educational establishments?
Much of the briefing we have received reflects the difficulty for local fire and rescue services in keeping up with the increasing demands of current legislation on their professional advice, monitoring and inspection. Fire safety assessments of schools are done by school staff not trained to do so, with no requirement to provide evidence. FR services believe they should check this assessment but accept that this would put greater pressure on their resources. However, it should be done, and appropriately resourced.
Fire safety is, of course, not all that the fire brigades deal with. They rescue people from all kinds of situations, including the increased flooding events caused by climate change. It is very concerning therefore that they are finding difficulty in recruiting enough officers. Services are calling for more flexibility in the fire uplift grant, which pays for prevention services. In addition, in order to adequately meet fire safety requirements, all FRSs need greater council tax flexibility, a three-year government settlement and an allocation of the protection grant that reflects local circumstances. Can the Minister comment on this?
While many colleagues have focused on building safety, I would like to focus the main thrust of my remarks on issues of the fire standards for furnishings. According to UKRI research, the UK is one of the highest users of chemical flame retardants—the chemicals that extend the time it takes for a material to catch fire. This is partly because of our open-flame ignition test. However, there are both health and environmental concerns about these substances. The researchers also found that a significant proportion of fire deaths are caused by inhalation of toxic fumes from these chemicals, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton, including cyanide gas and carbon monoxide. That is not all: even before fires occur there are risks to health, including increasing diabetes, obesity and cancer risks, as well as effects on hormones, DNA, and heart and kidney function. Particular concerns have been raised about potential effects on babies and young children, who may be more susceptible to health impacts while they are developing and are likely to frequently put their hands in their mouths. This is because flame retardants migrate out of the products through wear, abrasion and disposal or recycling. They collect and persist, staying in the body, air, food and drinking water, as well as on surfaces; they also enter rivers and lakes.
What is being done? Not enough. In 2014 and 2016, the Government consulted on ways and means of reducing the use of flame retardants because of these concerns, but nothing was done then. In 2019, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report, Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Life, identified concerns regarding the use of flame retardants, including emphasising the potential health impacts for babies and children. It pointed out that the furniture and furnishings regulations have been under review by BEIS, as it was then, and by its predecessor department for 10 years.
In 2021, at last, the Office for Product Safety and Standards ran a call for evidence on a UK product safety review. It published research on fire risks of upholstered products this year. The Government now propose new fire safety regulations for upholstered products. The consultation ended in October. One of the intentions of the draft regulations is to:
“Enable and encourage a reduction in the use of chemical flame retardants.”
However, the draft regulations fall short of what is needed and would, for example, exclude from scope items such as small cushions and baby products, including playpens and carrycots. I hope that I can correctly assume that mattresses used in hospitals are included. Given that the smallest of items can cause a fire, can the Minister tell me why baby products are excluded from scope? There are also measures about better enforcement and compliance, all of which would require additional personnel and funding. Can the Minister tell me whether these measures would be adequately funded, given the concerns I expressed earlier about resources for the FRS?
I am not the only person expressing these concerns. In March 2023, scientists in the journal Environment International asked that
“a very high level of certainty about the human and environmental safety of flame retardants is demonstrated before they are approved for use”,
and to ensure that there are “monitoring systems” to rapidly flag issues and replace flame retardants. Dr Paul Whaley, from Lancaster University, said that
“there has to be a proper balancing of the harms and benefits of flame retardants, that includes a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of flame retardants as a fire safety measure”.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee followed up its earlier report this month, complaining that
“many of the Government’s proposals stop short of what the Committee had previously recommended”.
Like me, it wanted to know why baby products are being excluded from scope, whether best practice from other countries is being considered, and what measures the Government are considering that would give more information to consumers on the chemical flame retardants used in their furniture.
The Fire Brigades Union considers that the proposals are deregulatory and put profits before firefighter and public safety. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute also felt that more products should be in scope, including products labelled for use outdoors—because they are often stored indoors.
What does the Minister have to say to all that criticism of the proposals? We need materials in our homes which deter fire risk but do not damage our health. I would like to know what research the Government are funding to identify such products and disseminate their use.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goddard for bringing this important and timely debate today. I am particularly looking forward to the Minister’s reply—I wish him the very best of luck.
I must first declare my interests as co-president of London Councils, the membership body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and as patron of the charity Electrical Safety First. Both of these organisations have given me very helpful briefings on which I shall rely today. I also declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Today I will refer mainly to London—because that is what I know about and where my experience lies—but I am sure my comments will apply to all local authorities throughout England with similar responsibilities to London boroughs.
I was prompted to take part in this debate after I attended the London Fire Brigade’s drop-in event in Portcullis House two weeks ago about e-bike and e-scooter fires. The London Fire Brigade has given me much useful and important information, as has my Liberal Democrat colleague on the London Assembly, Hina Bokhari, who has been very active on this subject—it is a particularly important one in London.
As demand for e-bikes and e-scooters has expanded, there has inevitably been a corresponding growth in fires from the lithium-ion batteries that power them. When overheating through damage or flawed design, or using a substandard charger, lithium-ion batteries can create fierce, toxic fires, which heat up very rapidly and can reach temperatures of over 600 degrees centigrade.
Fires in e-bikes and e-scooters are London’s fastest-growing fire trend. So far this year, the London Fire Brigade has attended 142 e-bike fires, along with 28 blazes involving e-scooters. This is 47% more than in the previous year, 2022, which was itself a record-breaking year. Sadly, this year has also seen three deaths and around 60 injuries caused by such fires.
Many of these fires are caused by faulty, non-compliant or counterfeit products purchased from online marketplaces, or by wrong chargers being used with batteries. Electrical Safety First has found concerning trends in London-based e-bike and e-scooter users. For instance, it found that 71% of Greater London-based delivery riders using a converted e-bike did the conversion themselves; and 48% of those delivery riders who had a converted e-bike sourced the conversion kit and/or batteries from online marketplaces, which are not regulated in the same way as high street shops.
In a separate survey of e-bike and e-scooter owners, Electrical Safety First found that 40% of e-bike and e-scooter owners charged their batteries in the communal area of the property they live in, such as a hallway or stairwell; 52% of e-bike and e-scooter owners in Greater London charged their batteries overnight while sleeping; and 39% of them in Greater London did not have working smoke alarms in their properties.
Addressing the dangers posed by e-bike and e-scooter batteries requires new UK-wide fire regulations. Electrical Safety First proposes that new regulatory measures should include third-party approval for e-bikes and e-scooters and their batteries, mirroring regulations for fireworks.
In Committee, considering the Pedicabs (London) Bill on Monday, the Minister said:
“The Government recognise that there are issues with e-scooters that we need to address, but this Bill is not the appropriate place to do so. As has been mentioned, we recently extended the e-scooter trials until 31 May 2026 to continue to gather evidence on how best to legislate for micromobility, including e-scooters, in future. Given the pressure on legislative time, that legislation will not come forward in this Session, unfortunately. Ahead of that, the Government intend to consult on the detailed approach for regulating e-scooters”.—[Official Report, 11/12/23; col. GC 232.]
Given the obviously urgent need to deal with this rapidly increasing problem, will the Minister, when he replies today, tell us when this consultation will start and, particularly, when it will end? Most importantly, will he confirm that it will not wait until after the trials referred to have ended in 2026?
I turn now to another fire safety issue of particular importance and concern in London—that of high-rise buildings. In July this year, the Government defined 18 metres, or seven floors, as the height at which buildings are at higher risk and the threshold at which new buildings should have a second staircase. Some 67%—two-thirds—of all such high-rise residential buildings in the UK are situated in London.
None of the Government’s fire risk assessment guides have been revised since their publication in 2006. Two examples of issues where current guidance is not clear are evacuation lifts and multiple staircases. The timing for a revision is uncertain, so can the Minister tell us today when it will take place? The London Fire Brigade is also urging the Government to provide further guidance and revised building regulations, including those relating to access and use of buildings, particularly for those with accessibility needs. Further detail is also needed on the transitional arrangements for second staircases, to give developers, local authorities, fire services and communities clarity.
London local authority-managed housing stock is more likely to be older, densified, and found in flatted blocks rather than houses. London boroughs face multiple pressures beyond building safety, such as the need to raise standards, meet net-zero targets and supply new affordable homes. Housing revenue accounts in London are under significant strain, as they are everywhere. The Government’s 7% ceiling on social rent increases in 2023-24 is estimated to have a £590 million impact on London boroughs’ housing revenue account finances over the next five financial years. This exacerbated the impact of the four-year 1% rent reduction policy in place from 2016-17, which, by 2021-22, left London rents an estimated £459 million lower than expected.
Local authorities are facing an increasingly complex regulatory environment, with a multitude of changes and different regulators. Alignment between regulatory bodies must be central to developing new regulatory practice and requirements. The new fire and building safety requirements are stretching London borough resources—and I am sure those of every other local authority, too—and their capacity. The building safety regulator charging regime will put significant additional financial pressure on local authorities, particularly those with a high number of complex buildings.
Lastly, I turn to building control. Local authority building control teams are at the forefront of new responsibilities relating to high-rise residential buildings, especially with the formation of the building safety regulator’s multidisciplinary teams that will come into force imminently. The Government must work with local authorities to ensure that building control teams are sufficiently resourced and enabled to meet new obligations to ensure residents’ safety. London borough building control teams urgently require clarity and guidance on their roles within the multidisciplinary hub, to ensure that it is implemented effectively. When will that clarity be given?
In conclusion, London borough resources and capacity are stretched to the limit—I am sure all local authorities are in the same position—as a result of financial pressures on the housing revenue account and a lack of sufficiently qualified staff to deliver these functions. Local authorities urgently need more funding and greater financial flexibility in order to meet fire and building safety requirements, at the same time as raising the standards of tenants’ homes, meeting new consumer standards and delivering new affordable housing. This should include allowing a rent catch-up so that social housing providers can gradually recover some of the reduced financial investment available as a result of the 7% rent ceiling.
A post-2025 rent settlement that provides sufficient funding and certainty is also needed, and London Councils encourages the Government to launch a consultation at the earliest opportunity. Specifically, the Government should recognise and unlock barriers faced by boroughs attempting to access, and make best use of, remedial funding to realise intended outcomes for residents. For example, local authorities receive remedial funding only for external cladding, not for other corrective fire and building safety works.
I recognise that the Minister may not have been briefed on all these points and may not anyway have time, even in his 20 minutes, to answer all the questions he has been asked today, so I would be grateful if he would write to me, and indeed to other noble Lords, answering the many questions that so far remain unanswered.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on his excellent introduction; I certainly cannot match his expertise in this field. I remind your Lordships of my professional involvement with buildings and construction as a chartered surveyor and as a patron of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, to which body I am very grateful for some background information. I am also grateful to the Library staff for digging out a lot of information and to Chris Waterman for his very pertinent comments.
Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which came into effect in 2006, we had a regime of responsibility on individuals within organisations for risk assessments to identify, manage and reduce fire risks. However, prior to this order, all public and commercial buildings and all non-single household domestic buildings, save for houses in multiple occupation, needed a fire certificate issued annually following inspection. Post 2006, that was replaced with a system of third-party assessors but with no mandated timeframe for checks nor any professional competence set out. Furthermore, it did not normally apply to domestic premises.
I believe these changes were significant. In 2013, I am told the fire service found that 14% of risk assessments were non-compliant. In 2018, it was found that 500 out of a total of 800 assessors—a small enough number in itself—were not registered with any accredited body, so their credentials were not monitored. In between, there was a transfer of responsibility in 2016 from DCLG to the Home Office. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, there are split departmental responsibilities, gaps and all sorts of other problems. The past history has been one of little regulatory enforcement since 2006; in the case of much residential property, I would go as far as saying there is a significant lacuna.
Moving on to the current situation, there remain inconsistencies. While those occupying business premises are obliged to carry out reasonably thorough risk assessments just to get insurance and are driven by that aspect, for the freeholder it may be a matter mainly of common parts. The responsible person in any given instance may be several people. They are supposed to liaise but very likely have an imperfect understanding of each other’s risk profile. There is some guidance about risk assessments, but I see no requirement for accreditation or need for any construction knowledge.
That may be fine for straightforward, simple cases where there is evidently low risk, but I do not think it is generally true. As of now, for low and medium-rise residential property, there is seemingly no obligation on occupiers at all, despite the concerns around batteries and the use of certain types of equipment, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The obligation of the block manager seemingly is for common parts only, with no further obligation to investigate in additional detail.
Yet the incidence of fires is, I am told, far greater for domestic premises than for other types of use. I wonder how many residents in Victorian terraced houses divided into say two, three or four self-contained units are aware that they may now have collective responsibilities? If we are not enforcing regulatory compliance—and I hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about inadequacy of resources, a point also made by others—one has to question the purpose and direction of policy in this whole area.
I believe that it is not necessarily generally the failure of equipment itself. The inherent safety in many cases is really quite good, but it depends on the use and occupation and the category of that occupation—for instance, as other noble Lords mentioned, trying to charge lithium-ion batteries with unsuitable chargers or inadequate storage space, with items packed into areas that lack ventilation or a way to allow heat to escape.
While I am fine with a light touch for low-rise blocks of flats, there needs to be a minimum standard of efficacy and the regime has to be proportionate to the actual risks. In July 2021, the independent experts advising the Government produced a statement determining that low-rise buildings were at materially lower risk from a life-critical fire safety standpoint. This fed into the legislation, despite noble Lords, including me, contending in this House that low rise did not equate to acceptably low risk. Moreover, the independent experts did not consider other structural issues of which fire safety surely forms part and parcel in any holistic approach.
The position of the responsible person or persons seems precarious if fire safety deficiencies are suspected but not actually known, where they have simply never been looked into at all, or where they are known but the original developer—as I am told in one case—declined to step in to remediate because, as it apparently put it, “the level of risk has not been established”, or words to that effect. Residents are inevitably put at a degree of unquantified risk.
But the statement from the independent experts did not cover economic security or the effects on those in buildings requiring remediation but with no clear recourse or defence against huge costs, financial ruin, disruption to lives, lifestyles and life chances because under the Building Safety Act they might not in any way be protected against such eventualities. I also did not detect that the structural integrity of buildings—which cannot be considered in isolation from fire safety itself—was part of their remit.
Turning to the points made earlier by noble Lords, I entirely take the point about the calculation of risk assessment, but it seems that at various points things are stopped part way for policy reasons. I think this is fundamentally a dangerous approach. There is a particular lesson that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be familiar with: the year before the independent experts’ statement came out, there was a major fire in one of several similar blocks. This was not mentioned by the independent experts, but it could have been. It clearly indicated that fire risk in some low-rise buildings is a critical matter and very much depends on the characteristics of the buildings in question, especially construction quality and use of materials internally. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, made exactly that point, and I can verify it from my own direct experience.
The reason for half-hour or one-hour fire resistant compartmentation is primarily to enable safe escape and, where escape is not possible, to enable fire and rescue services to control the outbreak. In a higher-rise building, it is clearly a question of staying put, or at least staying put in certain parts of the building, because of the sheer impossibility of people getting down 20 floors to safety, so stay put has to be in place. However, the fire that I am referring to that the independent experts seem to have ignored was in fact in a low-rise building. Were it not for the fact that the occupants decided they were going to ignore to a man the stay-put advice and get out, several of them would have been killed or injured because the building was effectively completely ablaze after 11 minutes from the time of the 999 call. It clearly was not going to maintain any structural integrity, but buildings need to retain structural integrity in terms of modern usage. For vulnerable occupants, things are much worse still.
Yet there seems to be little appetite for a regime of professional or other curiosity that might foresee and counter risk that may be self-evident, or for a regulatory regime to encourage that. It might be too much to insist on individual owners and occupiers of residential flats carrying out assessments or immediately ceasing the habits of a lifetime, but I venture to suggest that a programme of public awareness, like the ones with graphic images that I remember in relation to drink-driving and the failure to buckle up your seat belt, would be beneficial. We did that effectively with Covid. I invite the Minister to agree that more needs to be done to tidy up, update and clarify the regulation as to who is responsible and to create a more holistic approach, leaving fewer things to differential interpretation and avoiding the risk of matters being left to happenstance or falling between the jurisdictions of different government departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to the situation in which the standards of fire suppression that we now know are necessary have been abandoned. That is lamentable. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred in detail to the Luton Airport car park fire. I am told, I think on reasonable authority, that the structure of that car park was lightweight. I am tempted to wonder what the wider safety issues and possible fire consequences would have been if all the cars had been electric, with the weight considerations in such a structure.
There is a great deal that needs to be brought together here in this Motion. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to non-ACM combustible materials. I simply refer to the widespread use within buildings of expanded polystyrene, a product that was researched under commission from the Victorian Building Authority in Australia and considered to be as bad as ACM or worse.
It is not acceptable to conduct public administration by expecting safe outcomes from underspecifying assessments and regulatory adherence. I wish not to add to regulation but to design it to be efficient and likely to be observed. I am therefore entirely supportive of the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Goddard for initiating this debate and for his powerful opening speech, which is a reminder to us all of the devastation that fire can cause. None of us will ever forget the appalling loss of life in the Grenfell fire, which has already been referred to extensively. Out of that has come a recognition that much more needs to be done to ensure that all our built infrastructure is compliant with fire safety requirements. Would that our hard-pressed fire and rescue services had the financial support they need to undertake that enormous task.
I will speak rather more locally on this matter. I live in a beautiful part of the country, North Yorkshire, and I think we were the first rural local authority to merge the police and fire services. Looking at the latest draft Fire and Rescue Plan 2022-25 for North Yorkshire, I quote from the joint commissioner’s objectives:
“The Fire Service should be at the centre of partnership efforts to protect public safety as a trusted and very local public service”.
Amen to all that. It works in conjunction with other significant partners—the health service, local government and of course the police—in a much more co-ordinated, joined-up way now than it ever did when I was a member of both the police authority and the fire authority many years ago, and I very much welcome those steps.
Here I must deviate for a moment and express my deep concern about police and crime commissioners taking on the responsibility for overseeing the work of the fire and rescue service alongside that of the police. I am even more concerned to see proposals for police chiefs to add on to their roles the job of being chief fire officer. That is a ludicrous idea and is opposed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and, I imagine, the chiefs of the fire services. The two roles are entirely different—in law, apart from anything else—and in my opinion should never be merged. We are not America yet.
To return to the theme of today’s debate, it is right that a new integrated review to update fire safety guidance now takes place in all parts of the country, especially in areas that have high-rise buildings but also in schools and hospitals, about which we have heard so much today. A recent example of that is the school built just four years ago in Essex that had to be demolished because of its modular construction—again, we have heard about that today—which many new buildings now seem to prefer but which can be a definite fire hazard.
Then there is the recent finding of RAAC, which is posing massive concerns throughout the country in our schools, hospitals and other public buildings. Can the Minister tell us how far we have got with checking on all these buildings? Do the Government check the use of construction materials coming into the country? Is there a particular safety compliance for buildings with these materials? Is their fire performance a prerequisite for obtaining planning permission?
Modern buildings consist of large quantities of plastic and vinyl-based materials that have a high combustion toxicity and pose a risk to life. Fire suppression systems should be fitted to all new high-rise buildings and, as we have heard, most of our schools, while illuminating paint, additional signs and marked pathways should be indicated as a matter of course. All new buildings should have automated fire sensors installed. Between 2012 and 2016, smoke alarms failed to operate in an average of 25,700 home fires per year, causing 440 deaths and 1,440 injuries annually. That is an appalling number.
Coming back to North Yorkshire, when the transfer of governance to the police and crime commissioner for the overseeing of the fire authority took place three years ago, there was already a deficit of £2.5 million, so the service has had to make savings equivalent to 10% of its budget over those three years. As I mentioned previously, the draft plan for the fire service has many ambitions, which of course I endorse, but enabling the fire service to fulfil those ambitions and objectives on such a reduced budget will be nigh on impossible.
North Yorkshire and the city of York combined unitary authorities cover an area of 3,209 square miles with a population of around 830,000—an area that stretches almost from coast to coast across the top of the north of England. It can take well over two hours to drive across it in good weather. It is incredibly challenging for all our emergency services, in particular our fire service. We have only five whole-time shift fire stations, seven whole-time day-crewed stations, 24 retained stations and two volunteer-crewed stations. The firefighters may not have to deal with significant numbers of high-rise buildings, being in a predominantly rural area, but they have vast areas of land to cover, with significant risk of moorland fires and the concomitant problems of climate change and danger to protected habitats, wildlife and livestock. The Vale of York suffers badly from flooding, as do parts of the Yorkshire Dales. These are all difficulties our fire service must deal with and overcome. The public expect it to do so.
Here, I too extend my thanks for the many lives and buildings that our firefighters have saved, often in dangerous and highly toxic conditions. The North Yorkshire brigade attended 8,256 incidents in the year ending June 2023—13% more than in the previous year. There were 3,252 false alarms; we have not heard much about those today. There were 2,055 fires and 2,949 non-fire incidents, almost certainly road traffic accidents. That is quite a workload for only 592 firefighting personnel.
The fire and rescue national framework requires each fire authority to produce an integrated risk management plan. The public must be able to see this. The plan must reflect all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks and set out its management strategy, as well as showing that effective consultation with communities has taken place. It must also consult its workforce and other partners, and cover a three-year time span. Those are all important requirements, which presupposes that there will be money for the service to undertake these duties—duties that require the very highest calibre of personnel, who will all require extensive training and first-class equipment.
My next concern is how all this will be paid for. The Fire Standards Board produced national professional standards but recruiting firefighters is becoming more difficult, especially for hard-pressed local government, precisely because the private sector can poach the brightest and best as it pays better money; that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Indeed, privatisation of the service is looking increasingly likely. From buying expensive safety equipment to high-vis jackets, you can see adverts all over the internet for essential firefighting use.
Surely it is time we had an integrated review to look at updating fire safety guidance and ensuring that all areas of our country are protected as much as possible from the ravages of fire—from our high-rise buildings to our vast areas of underpopulated but important habitats, from our schools and our hospitals to other public buildings where people should be able to feel safe. All are important and need the assurance that they have been inspected by well-trained, professional people with the right skills to undertake such a specialist task. An integrated review looking at all these issues would be the right way forward; I urge the Minister to support this.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor in Kirklees in West Yorkshire and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
My noble friend Lord Goddard has inspired a well-informed debate on a matter of life and death—literally. He started his introduction to this debate by exposing the incoherence in the management of fire risk in buildings across various government departments. My noble friend Lady Harris pointed to a more local incoherence and the difficulty of merging the police and crime commissioner’s responsibilities with the fire and rescue responsibilities in her county of North Yorkshire, but it is a growing trend across the country. It seems to me that incoherence, both local and national, is at the very heart of today’s debate. The fact that we are not able to have an overall fire safety strategy, agreed and implemented in a coherent way across all government departments, seems to be at the heart of what we are debating today.
I am unashamedly going to start by talking about the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 because that tragedy powerfully reminded us of the vulnerabilities that we all face when fire comes: 72 people lost their lives. The Fire Safety Act and the Building Safety Act, which the Government implemented as a consequence of the Grenfell fire, have made substantial improvements to fire prevention in buildings, particularly domestic ones—but, as all speakers have referenced, there is still much to do.
Although fire and rescue services have enabled a steady decline in fires in homes, and deaths from such fires, each year more than 300 people still die from fires and just under 30,000 fires occur in dwellings. Grenfell exposed the callous decisions made by manufacturers of cladding, who knew that the products they were promoting were flammable. Action has been taken by government to remove dangerous cladding from high-rise blocks, but the Government have turned their back on those who live in blocks under 11 metres; they are getting no help at all in removing this dangerous cladding. I have raised this issue many times in your Lordships’ House and will continue to do so in order to raise the concerns and anxieties of leaseholders who continue to live in flats covered with dangerous cladding.
Many areas of reform and improvement in fire safety have been raised during this debate. Taking buildings as a whole, several noble Lords have referred to the use of automatic fire suppression systems, such as sprinklers. My noble friends Lady Walmsley, Lord Goddard and Lady Brinton—and others—raised the importance of including sprinklers in buildings, particularly residential and nursing homes, schools and hospitals. It would be good to hear what the Minister makes of the strong arguments that they have made on this issue.
My noble friend Lady Brinton again made the powerful case for making sure that people with disabilities are able to evacuate buildings when needed. I suggest that people might like to read Show Me the Bodies, the book on the Grenfell fire by Peter Apps. It is not a joyful read; it details the awful fact that 41% of the 72 who died were people with disabilities, who were simply and tragically unable to get out. A second staircase in Grenfell Tower may have helped many more people to evacuate safely. This year, the Government have mandated that new buildings over 18 metres must have a second staircase. However, as my noble friend Lord Goddard pointed out, the implementation of this has been deferred. It is important in high-rise blocks for there to be an alternative escape route. My noble friend Lord Tope also pointed to the importance of improvements in building regulations in improving fire safety.
As many noble Lords will know, the Grenfell Tower fire was started by a fault in a fridge. Nearly one fire a day in London is caused by faulty white goods. Improving the safety of electrical goods in the home will lead to a reduction in domestic fires. My noble friend Lord Tope has long been an advocate of improving electrical fire safety and he spoke powerfully on this issue.
Another issue exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire was compartmentation. As pointed to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, it was very clear that structural integrity had been compromised by poor fire safety doors and the installation of new windows which were shabbily put in—they did not fit and were made to fit using filler. That increased the intensity and rapidity of the fire in Grenfell. It is very important to have building inspectors and building control who have the power to be able to put those matters right. The Hackitt report made it very clear that that was at the heart of what had to happen. We are still waiting for the Government to implement that element of her report. Maybe we will see it when the second phase of the Grenfell Tower report is published next year.
I will move on to other areas noble Lords referred to. Other electrical fires come from small batteries, and we are increasingly using small batteries in all our lives. We all have phones, chargers, e-bikes and e-scooters. My noble friend Lord Tope has drawn attention to the dreadful fires resulting from these. We have probably all had a briefing from the London Fire Brigade, which said that the fire service has attended 142 e-bike fires and 28 e-scooter fires this year. As we have also heard, three people have sadly died from these fires. Many noble Lords who raised this issue have urged the Government to regulate battery charging and for greater control of the battery chargers you can get online, which may not be adequate when it comes to safety. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this.
It is not just electrical fires inside the home that can be a problem. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, furniture and furnishings can also create a hazard—though not so much a fire hazard, because of the regulations of 1988 that ensured that soft furnishings were treated with fire retardants. The excellent Library briefing has drawn our attention to the fact that fire retardants have succeeded in reducing household fires but that these are not without their own problems. There is evidence that, during a fire, some flame retardants release toxic gases and smoke, as raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton. The UK Research and Innovation study explained that a
“significant proportion of … deaths are caused by inhalation of toxic fumes, including cyanide gas and carbon monoxide”.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley has drawn our attention to the seeping toxicity of some of these flame retardants, which over the years can have an adverse effect, especially on children, as they are bio-accumulative.
There have been several attempts by Governments to address these findings and, finally, change is coming—but next year, and perhaps not in as comprehensive a way as those who are concerned about fire safety would wish. For example, the Fire Brigades Union has stated that Ministers should ban flame retardants which cause toxic fumes to result or introduce testing for toxicity before enabling them to be used. Draft regulations will enable manufacturers to continue using flame retardants if manufacturers decide they are the most “practicable” solution. There is a huge gap there in improving fire safety in the home.
This has been a very good debate on a vitally important subject. Firefighters across the country bravely save lives. While the Government have an incoherent approach to fire safety, they will continue to have to go out and put their lives at risk to save the lives of others. This Motion is to take note; I hope the Minister will urge the Government to take action.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I know he has done Questions before, but I think this is his first debate, so I welcome him to the Dispatch Box to speak for the Government. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I noticed the changes being proposed and consulted on by the Government with respect to fire regulations. Given their importance, the noble Lord has done us all a service by bringing them before this Chamber to be discussed in this important debate.
Fire is an ever-present danger, and something we must all consider and take into account in our personal and professional lives. Noble Lords will remember that, just a couple of days ago, we had a fire drill in this place—the marshals went out and procedures were looked at. That is very important and shows that, here and everywhere, you have to take account of the threat that fire can pose to us.
The figures show a drop in the number of fires and related deaths and injuries. This is to be welcomed. It would be ridiculous for us not to say that it is really good news to see that the number of fires and fire-related incidents across our country has declined. But one of the things that has come from this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and others have said, is that you cannot be complacent: you cannot believe that the job is done and not worry or be concerned about where we are. Our efforts must continue.
Many noble Lords have recognised the efforts of our firefighters and fire services, and all of those who are working on that. I will not make the political point that it is a shame we have seen such a reduction in their numbers—but I thought I might drop it in there. The work of firefighters has been quite brilliant.
Barely a day goes by without reference to a serious fire somewhere, sometimes tragically involving the loss of life. None of us will forget the horrors of the Grenfell Tower fire. It is worth repeating that that was a tower block of some 24 storeys. We saw the television pictures, with flames and smoke billowing out: 72 people died, 223 managed to escape and 70 were injured. You can only imagine the consequences for people living with that horror for the rest of their lives. It was a horrific wake-up call to us.
The inquiry and reports are asking why and how it happened. What could have been done? That is why the reports coming out are so important. I know the second phase of the report is supposed to be next year, but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when that might be, because we all want that report to come out as soon as possible. As many noble Lords have said, it will make some quite significant points and, from that horror, we must do all we can to make sure we minimise risks.
That is why these regulations are so important. Noble Lords raised Luton Airport and what happened in the car park there. Are there lessons to learn from that? All of us have to use regulations to try to minimise risk and bring about overall improvement.
What is the state of the current fire safety regulations? Can the Minister update us on that? There are reviews, consultations and refreshes, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, talked about updating them. All of that is apparently going on, but there is a plethora of it. The landscape is very cluttered, and it is very difficult to understand who is doing what and where we have got to with these different regulations. Given the importance of all that, some clarity from the Minister would be welcome.
We heard that the Government have been consulting on new regulations on the fire safety of various products. The consultation on upholstered products ended on 24 October. When do the Government expect to publish the results? What is their view on some of the criticisms that we have heard about small items not being included? Many fires start from small items: this may be the right thing to do, but it would be helpful to understand the rationale. I read the regulations and some of the small items included babies’ cots and cushions. There must be a rationale for that—somebody has not just made it up—but what is it and why?
Do the Government accept concerns about the use of flame retardants? Dr Paul Whaley, an expert from Lancaster University, said:
“There are longstanding concerns about the effectiveness of flame retardants and the health risks associated with them”.
We heard about some of those—smoke inhalation and so on—and those criticisms were echoed by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, which said that the Government’s proposed new regulations do not go far enough and are a wasted opportunity to further improve fire safety.
The FBU has also criticised the new proposed regulations, saying that they are, in fact, “deregulation” that puts firefighters and public safety at risk. I suppose it is asking why the Government would deregulate small cushions and babies’ cots from the regulations when, as even somebody who is not an expert on fire knows, those things do catch fire. I am trying to understand that.
As we have just heard, there is a more general issue with enforcement. Whatever regulations we have, they need to be robustly enforced and all the buildings checked. Fire inspections and the work of the fire service must be robustly supported. Can the noble Lord explain how the Government seek to support the enforcement of fire regulations? Does he have any figures on the numbers of inspections and any consequential action that has followed them, including the number of prosecutions following enforcement notices that have been issued? I had a look, although not for hours on end, and I could not find those figures. They would be useful to understand what is happening with enforcement.
The Building Safety Act 2022 set up the new building safety regulator to regulate high-risk buildings, raise safety standards and help professionals improve their competence. High-risk buildings were defined, and there is a duty to regulate care homes and hospitals through their design and construction phases. That is a really good and important change. If you are regulating care homes and hospitals through their design and construction phases, you are clearly trying to minimise the risk of fire, which is a good thing. Local authorities are now involved in this important work, as well, but how will all that be monitored? Will there be an annual report to Parliament, so that we can see how the work of the building safety regulator is going?
The London Fire Brigade has called for a number of changes to fire regulations and for a number of things to be done more broadly. As we have heard in the debate, these include the provision of second staircases in tall buildings. The Government accepted this for new buildings over a certain threshold, but what about older buildings and other buildings? Why are second staircases appropriate in some buildings but not others?
Sprinklers in buildings are another demand. Again, they are required in certain buildings, but many of us find it very difficult to understand why you would not put sprinklers in new care homes, hospitals or schools. I understand the difficulty with old buildings, but if they are part of the design, that will minimise the cost. What is the Government’s rationale for their policy on sprinklers in both new and old buildings? Knowing that would help us understand, particularly when it comes to care homes. Given the number of people who were trapped in Grenfell and could be trapped in other buildings, that is one of the things that sprinklers are designed to overcome.
We have also heard about the increasing risk with lithium ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters. I do not know if other noble Lords were aware of this, but I did not know how prevalent fires caused by e-scooters parked in communal areas are. I had no idea that this was now the newest threat and the cause of fires in various buildings. The figures are worth repeating. The London Fire Brigade has attended 142 e-bike fires and 28 blazes caused by e-scooters. I was quite surprised by this. Does the Minister have any figures for the rest of the country? What are the Government proposing to do about what appears to be a new threat of fires stemming from the increased use of e-scooters?
We all welcome the reduction in fires and in fire-related deaths to which I referred earlier. This remains a work in progress. It requires us to keep demanding more. Tragedies, large or small, cannot just be the spur to action. It cannot be that, when a tragedy occurs, we debate why on earth we did not do anything about it; why the regulations to stop it were not in place, or how on earth we allowed this to happen. This cannot be how public policy is determined. It needs rational and calm debate where people like us demand that the Government respond. We want to know that as much as possible has been done to prevent fires in future. I do not want a situation where a tragedy is the spur to action. This is not a good enough way to make public policy.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for tabling this debate, and to all noble Lords who have contributed. I am grateful for all the work done in this area. I found it quite moving, listening to the experiences which noble Lords have shared. Along with other noble Lords, I also thank the APPG and the late Sir David Amess
The Grenfell Tower fire was a terrible tragedy which rightly shone a light on the need for reform. Fire safety is rigorously debated in this House. We owe it to every one of the victims and their families to ensure that we continue to give it the scrutiny it deserves. As many other noble Lords have done, I too express thanks and gratitude to the firefighters for all that they have done in putting their lives at risk in keeping us safe.
It might be helpful if I first talk about the work that we have undertaken to significantly strengthen the regulations that govern fire safety in the wake of the Grenfell fire. In the time since the fire, as has been noted, the Government have delivered the Fire Safety Act, the Building Safety Act and the fire safety regulations. Alongside the fire safety order, these changes deliver a comprehensive approach to the regulation of fire safety in England and improve existing legislation.
Since 2006, this order has been the main piece of fire safety legislation in England. As noble Lords will know, it places legal duties on responsible persons, including the need to undertake a fire risk assessment, put in place fire safety precautions and operate a suitable system of maintenance. It rightly places the onus on building owners to ensure that their properties are safe. While the Government publish guidance to help them do so, both the FSO and the guidance are purposely non-prescriptive. This is because no two buildings are the same and a case-specific approach must always be taken.
Although respondents to the 2019 call for evidence were clear that the FSO is widely regarded as a highly effective piece of legislation, they also highlighted some areas where they felt it could be strengthened. Section 156 of the Building Safety Act delivered our response by amending the FSO to make it easier for enforcement action to be taken in cases of non-compliance, compel the owners of multi-occupied residential premises to share fire safety information with their residents, and increase the need for different duty holders in the same building to co-ordinate their activities, thus ensuring a whole-building approach to fire safety.
The Fire Safety Act further strengthened the FSO by putting it beyond doubt that, for buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises, the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors must be considered as part of the fire risk assessment. That was a crucial step in addressing the potential for fire to spread throughout a building in the way in which it did at Grenfell.
Alongside these amendments, the fire safety regulations created new legal requirements for the owners of multi-occupied residential buildings to share building plans and other important fire safety information with fire and rescue services, helping them to plan their response in the case of an emergency. They also placed new legal requirements on building owners to regularly check fire doors in their building to ensure that they remained in full working order.
Through the Building Safety Act, we created a new regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings or—more specifically—multi-occupied residential buildings that are 18 metres or more in height or more than seven storeys. The Act also established a new building safety regulator within the Health and Safety Executive and a new construction products regulator within the Office for Product Safety & Standards. The building safety regulator will work in partnership with local authorities and fire and rescue services to oversee compliance with the building regulations during design and construction. From October 2023, the building control body for higher-risk buildings was due to commence regulation of fire and structural safety once a building is occupied.It is already a legal requirement to register existing occupied higher-risk buildings with the regulator. As of 24 November 2023, more than 14,000 registrations had been completed or started.
As we all learned from the tragedy of Grenfell, fire safety in an occupied building relies heavily on a building being constructed correctly in the first place. So, alongside these changes, we have amended the building regulations that apply to new building work, including a ban on combustible materials for residential buildings, hotels, hospitals and student accommodation above 18 metres, with additional guidance for residential buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres, and a lower threshold for the provision of sprinklers—which I will come on to in more detail—in new blocks of flats from 30 metres to 11 metres.
I will now at least try to address some of the excellent points that have been made. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope said, if I cannot address everyone’s concerns, I will certainly write.
A number of people raised the issue of sprinklers and related issues. As I said, there have been some updates to the guidance on building regulations. I was asked about retrofitting. Retrofitting sprinklers is not always the right option, and other fire safety measures could be taken instead which may be more appropriate for an individual building. I was asked about school buildings. School building contractors must meet the requirements of the building regulations and are required to install sprinklers where there is a life-safety issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of departmental clarity and cross-government work. The Home Office holds overall departmental responsibility for fire and safety. It is obviously very complex, as we have said, and there are many departments that work together, particularly the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. That is why we work in conjunction across all departments, but, as I say, the Home Office takes the lead.
A number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Naseby raised the fire at Luton Airport. As I may have said in my previous remarks, we are committed to carrying out a comprehensive review of Approved Document B. I understand that regulators are overseeing this review, including the fire resistance of car parks, and we are looking at this and committed to change. We will communicate that in due course.
On the response to the report of the second part of the inquiry, I understand that it is still ongoing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said, there is a huge amount of work, which is ongoing, and we continue to await what is said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about baby products. There are several proposed changes in the new approach, and the consultation sets out a list of products not in scope in this new approach. All products removed must still meet the requirements of the General Product Safety Regulations. I hope that provides a bit of clarity.
Something that was raised by a number of noble Lords in the debate was lithium-ion batteries and the fires that come from them. I shall touch briefly on e-scooters after this. There is a lot of activity going on currently across government to gather evidence and develop mitigations. Part of the work that is taking place is about awareness, safe usage and, crucially, storage and charging. Some of this work is being done through our existing Fire Kills campaign, I believe. Product safety laws require products to be safe and manufacturers must ensure safety before placing a product on the market.
On the related issue concerning e-scooters, as I say, it is all being looked at while evidence is being gathered and it is something we are absolutely looking at to see what more can be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, asked about staffing and salaries. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the fire and rescue services have the resources they need to keep us safe. Overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.6 billion in 2023-24. Decisions on how resources are best deployed to meet their core function, including recruitment and retention, are a matter for the authorities, based on local needs. I am afraid the Home Office does not have a role in negotiations on funding of the firefighters or their pay.
On a related note, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about general pressures on local authorities, and other pressures. It goes without saying that we all know that social housing providers have several priorities and obligations that they must consider when balancing all this out, and we want to balance the imperative to move quickly to drive up standards with the need to take into account the challenging environment that they will be in. We will be asking about this in our upcoming consultation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and a number of others raised the very important issue of mobility-impaired persons and PEEPs. As has been said, it is worth remembering those disabled people who lost their lives in the fire. We are committed to supporting the fire safety of disabled and vulnerable residents, and we are acutely aware of the need to ensure the safety of residents with mobility concerns. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has raised this issue previously with ministerial colleagues of mine, as have a number of other noble Lords. Indeed, I know it has rightly been scrutinised in this House, as well as some of the challenges which are required to be overcome. It is something which I too have discussed with the department, in advance of this debate, and the noble Baroness is right to raise this very important issue. I know the department and others are working on it, and a response will come in due course.
I turn now to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Before I do so, I thank him for his very kind remarks. It was not that long ago I gave my maiden speech, before joining the Front Bench, in which I talked about the kindness and warmth I have felt from everyone across this House, on all sides of the Chamber, since I was introduced. I have engaged closely with the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, on a variety of issues of late in relation to my ministerial responsibilities. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the candid, often frank but cordial, and—crucially—warm way in which he has dealt with me, and I am extremely grateful, given that I am the new kid on the block.
Turning to some of the remaining points, on the regulator, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised, we expect the regulator to carry out its work in a proportionate yet pragmatic way. Obviously, it is still very early days to see how it works, but this is something that will be taken forward, given it has not yet come into force.
The noble Lord asked about statistics and enforcement, and I am afraid I will have to write to him about that—I assure him I will do so.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the issue of second staircases. As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, it was designed with the engagement of the sector but also fire safety services and local authorities, as well as the insurance industry. This approach seeks to provide an evolution of safety standards which, taken with our other measures and reforms, ensures the safety of people in tall buildings, both new and existing. The Government are clear that existing and upcoming single-staircase buildings are not inherently unsafe. There is no evidence to suggest single-staircase buildings require remediation or mitigation when built in accordance with the relevant standards, are well maintained and properly managed.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, asked why there are no Peers from the fire services. It is a very good question. I am afraid that is not currently within my remit—as I say, currently—but it is a point well made.
There have been lots of great points raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said. There are far too many—I have tried to listen and address them at the same time. Noble Lords must forgive me that I will have to follow up, where I can. I am also aware that not everyone will be entirely satisfied with everything I say. I will try and respond, if I can, on the other issues.
In closing, I genuinely thank noble Lords for their contributions in the debate. The reforms we have delivered will take time to fully implement and take hold. We will reflect on the many points raised today, as we continue to monitor the impact of our reforms, which is something noble Lords asked about. I assure the House of the Government’s enduring commitment to improved fire safety, as we seek to ensure everyone is safe, and feels safe, in the buildings in which they live and work.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank all Members who took part in this debate, which I put down in some trepidation because it seemed a little bit dry and technical. The expertise in the House has shown itself again, from all four corners. It would be wrong for me to name individual Peers, but the knowledge is in the Members. These are life-changing decisions that we make on behalf of the public out there.
One noble Lord talked about Ukraine. On the last sitting day before the Summer Recess, I was fortunate enough to go with Ronnie King to see the Ukrainian Minister at his embassy. He commented on the support of the British fire service in delivering things to Ukraine in their darkest hour, when they needed ladders and equipment. The fire service took the kit out there and dropped it off. This is the first opportunity I have had a chance to thank, on behalf of Ronnie and the APPG, the Ukrainian Minister for bringing that up with us.
The noble Lord is a new Minister, and this is probably a—dare I say it—baptism of fire. However, there are questions that need clarifying and answering, because some of this seems unfathomable to right-minded, simple people like myself. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has asked those questions on my behalf, because of the time. People might think that we do not care, but a number of speakers today went over their time, which was 12 minutes—a long time to speak. That is because of the passion and the knowledge that they are trying to impart to the Minister to take back to people in the other place to make things safer. On behalf of everybody, I thank the Minister for listening and for his replies.
Elgin Marbles
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of proposals to loan the Elgin Marbles to Greece.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the Elgin marbles—or Parthenon sculptures, as some prefer—are famous for two reasons. The first reason is of course because they are magnificent treasures of civilization, part of the heritage of our world. The second reason that they are famous is as regrettable as it is persistent. These great treasures have an almost infinite capacity to provoke heated arguments about their ownership and their location. It is almost impossible to mention them in everyday conversation without instigating a dispute on these points.
This has not always been the case. The sculptures were brought to our country between 1801 and 1812 by the 7th Earl of Elgin, about whom many unkind things are said. They were placed in the possession of the British Museum by Act of Parliament in 1816. For the next 165 years, there was scarcely a peep of protest from anyone in Greece—which had become an independent country in 1832—about their residence in one of the world’s greatest museums. During this long period, the idea that the British Museum’s possession was permanent became a settled conviction in Britain.
The peace was shattered some 40 years ago. Since then, politicians and other leading figures in Greece, a country whose friendship has always been greatly valued in Britain, have repeatedly demanded that the treasures should be installed once again on the Acropolis, from which, in the Greek view, they were illegally removed by the much-criticised Lord Elgin. No one, I think, can doubt the strength of feeling that exists in Greece. It has the power to damage and blight good relations between our two countries, particularly at official and diplomatic levels. People of good will, in both Greece and Britain, must surely seek to diminish the acrimony with which the heated and recurrent arguments, engendered by dispute over ownership and location, have invested the great and famous sculptures.
Those seeking to understand the issues more fully will be greatly assisted by a recent detailed study by one of our leading scholars, Sir Noel Malcolm, a most distinguished historian of international standing with a particular interest in the Balkans, a fellow of the British Academy and of All Souls, Oxford. Sir Noel Malcolm’s meticulous scholarly study was published earlier this year by Policy Exchange, an organisation of enormous value in promoting debate on political and public affairs. Not all scholars reach clear conclusions. Sir Noel Malcolm does so. He finds the claim that the removal of the treasures was illegal to be false. He finds the claim that Elgin saved the treasures from serious damage, dispersal and destruction to be true. The central point is this: the British Museum has full legal entitlement to the treasures which Elgin saved for posterity.
It should perhaps be noted that no Greek Government have ever sought any form of legal judgment on the question of ownership, yet the words “theft” and “robbery” are freely bandied about on the Greek side.
The absence of serious doubt on the question of legal ownership is immensely important, but it does not settle definitively an issue of this kind. I sought the view of a retired Conservative Minister, an academic philosopher well-known for his careful consideration of all sides of highly contested issues. He told me that, in his view, the Elgin marbles have a special and disproportionate importance for the Greeks which sets them apart from almost anything else that has ended up outside their mother country. Should not that view incline us to consider sympathetically the Greek demand for the transfer of the sculptures from London to Athens?
However, must not great weight also be given to the fact that, in over more than 200 years, the Elgin marbles have become part of Britain’s cultural heritage? Some assert that a mere 200 years are of no significance in a roughly 2,500-year-long history of the sculptures, but that is to ignore the important fact that these 200 years constitute the great majority of the period during which, in post-classical times, the sculptures have been seriously valued as works of art.
Professor Mary Beard, who has done so much to extend our understanding of the ancient world, has said that
“after 200 years the Elgin Marbles have a history that roots them in the British Museum as well as in Athens”.
Surely such a statement confers great merit on the suggestion, which has been given wide publicity, that some form of loan arrangement might be instituted between the British Museum and the Greek Government. Mr George Osborne, the current chairman of the British Museum trustees, has become the principal champion of that idea. He tells us, not infrequently, that he is exploring the ways in which a loan scheme might be agreed with the Greek Government, with, as he put it recently,
“Greek treasures coming our way in return”.
At present, a loan is the only basis on which any of the Elgin marbles could go to Greece. They are the property of the museum, which is prohibited by an Act of Parliament from selling them or giving them to anyone else. A loan would be wholly compatible with the British Museum Act 1963, which states:
“The Trustees of the British museum may lend for public exhibition”.
It is a power that the trustees have not in the past been reluctant to use. The 1963 Act goes on to state that
“in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such objects is to be lent, the Trustees shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum”.
This surely rules out open-ended and potentially permanent arrangements.
There is another crucial issue. In any agreement with Greece, the museum would need to be certain that it will get its property back. The current policy on loans makes clear:
“The Trustees of the British Museum will lend only in circumstances when the perceived risk to the object is considered reasonable and when the borrower guarantees that the object will be returned to the Museum at the end of the loan period”.
If proposals for a loan, the subject of this debate, are to succeed, two essential preconditions would surely have to be met. First, the Greek Government would need to give a binding, legally enforceable commitment to restore the sculptures to their owner at the end of the loan period. Secondly, the length of the loan period would need to be firmly established. On the latter, various possibilities have been mentioned, ranging, I think, from five to 15 years. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have a view on the maximum time the sculptures should be on loan from the British Museum? Would the Government seek to ensure that a loan agreement fully respected the British Museum’s ownership of the Elgin marbles?
Would it not be wholly wrong, in seeking an agreement with Greece, to jeopardise the interests of the British people? Although the British Museum may have its difficulties at present, which will keep Mr Osborne busy, it has never failed in its duty to hold the Elgin marbles securely, in its own words,
“for the benefit of the world public, present and future”.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, for the benefit of the House I tell noble Lords that two noble Lords have given notice that they wish to speak in the gap. It is an incredibly tight debate and I am sure we want to hear from everyone and the Minister’s reply in full, so I implore all noble Lords to stick to the speaking time.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time I find myself congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on bringing such an important and timely debate. I am afraid I will disagree with much of what he said, including on matters of history. I say that with some trepidation to such an established historian, but there are different views about matters that have already been cited in your Lordships’ House.
The Prime Minister’s recent snub of the Greek premier, for even discussing his country’s well-known and long-established claim for the reunification of the Parthenon sculptures in their Athenian home, was more worthy of a sulking adolescent than an aspiring statesman. I slightly balk at the idea of the recipient of stolen goods agonising about their possible loan to the rightful owner. Whatever Policy Exchange may say, and perhaps legislate for with the flick of a pen, there are other views. I do not currently accept that Lord Elgin had permission from the Ottoman Empire to hack away at the marbles with crowbars and take them for the adornment of his Scottish mansion. He was authorised, I believe, only to take impressions. He sold them to the British Museum only after his subsequent bankruptcy. There, like much of our imperial history, they were scrubbed with wire wool, which did lasting damage.
I will not fast forward to recent governance troubles at the British Museum and the still unresolved systematic thefts from its mostly undisplayed treasures, but we might observe that the right to call itself “the museum of the world” et cetera is wearing extremely thin.
Regardless of arguments about legality, past or present, the British people know better than too many of their leaders how to make friends by being the bigger person. Most of them support returning the artefacts to the people to whom they mean so much more. A few minutes, let alone hours, at the Acropolis Museum in Athens would lead any noble Lord to understand just how much these artefacts mean to the people of Greece. Few have been fooled by years of buck-passing between museum and government around this issue, when technological advancement should make sharing and return so much easier than ever before.
I fear the Government are taking the concept of culture war to new and ever more literal levels. They are prepared to legislate to change facts, as found by our highest court, so as to transport desperate human cargo to Rwanda. But they are not prepared to legislate to allow the British Museum and other important collections even to make their own decisions about co-operation and vision over world heritage. They want to stop the boats, stop the courts and burn the bridges, but the Government’s marbles are long since lost.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to take part in this debate because I love ancient artefacts—so much so that my career began in ruins, working as a field archaeologist, trowel in hand. Please indulge me; it is panto season. Even now I feel a shiver of excitement at the memory of scraping back the dirt to reveal a sarcophagus lid and then lifting it to find the tomb still occupied in skeletal form. What is special about artefacts is that they conjure up stories when we see, touch or smell them. The sniffing part does not apply to skeletons—that would be weird—but there is nothing like a whiff of old alabaster. It is this story-telling function that I believe should be front of mind when we consider objects such as the Parthenon sculptures, recognising, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said, that location and context are important elements in how they speak to us.
As I have bounced between the British Museum and the new Acropolis Museum, each of which holds around half the surviving Parthenon sculptures, I have felt two quite different narratives emerge from these kindred objects. In London, the story is heavily weighted in favour of their recent history. They speak of 19th-century adventurers, of the neoclassical London architecture they influenced, of a Britain that prized Latin and Greek education above all else, and of a world of comparative cultural and artistic studies. In Athens, the story is very much one of them as integral architectural features of the Parthenon building that you can see from the gallery, of their position relative to other layers of Greek archaeology and of their representation of classical Athenian culture. One of the most powerful differences is in their positioning. The Duveen Gallery has them facing inwards while the new Acropolis Museum has them turned outwards, replicating their original arrangement on the Parthenon. They are, quite literally, introverted in London and extroverted in Athens.
I hope we can recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, set out, that each of these stories is interesting and valuable, and do not allow a lack of imagination to cause us to dismiss either of them out of hand. My personal preference, as my tone may have given away, is for the Athenian story, so I wish to see the entire set of sculptures together in the new Acropolis Museum. But I recognise that this would represent a loss to those who favour the London narrative, if they can no longer drop into the British Museum for a fix of their own preferred kind of classical inspiration.
Artefacts also add new elements to their stories over time; this is especially true for the Parthenon sculptures. As well as Lord Elgin himself, their story now includes Melina Mercouri, who kicked off that campaign 40 years ago, and Eleni Cubitt, who ran the UK campaign for their return over many years. Our current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has now become part of the story; George Osborne may be an even bigger figure if he leads the trustees to agree to some form of display in Athens. It is certainly my hope that we will find a way to have the entire set of sculptures singing their story out from the new Acropolis Museum, while the British Museum continues to tell its rich stories through other fabulous Greek objects from its own collection or from loans.
Our Prime Minister recently issued a clarion call for politicians not to feel bound by others’ past decisions, but rather to be willing to make
“long-term decisions for a brighter future”.
That question now sits in front of the British Museum trustees. If it seems better for the next chapter of the sculptures’ story to be set in Athens, I hope we can enable that to happen.
I invite the Minister to give an aesthetic opinion, as well as the legalistic ones that I suspect he has in his notes. It would be helpful for the House to know the personal preference of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for Parthenon placement.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate. It is right that we should debate this subject because it cannot be left just to museums. There is obviously room to debate the legal case. I think Lord Elgin’s actions were possibly a little murky; nevertheless, our legal case is good. I also think that is not the point. The point is what we do now, rather than what happened in the past.
Personally, I have never been so convinced by the moral, artistic and cultural arguments for the position we take. The Parthenon marbles are a special situation and we should try to find a special solution. They are one of the supreme expressions of ancient Greek, hence western, art. They were created for a specific building and a specific cultural context. In contrast to much ancient sculpture, we know exactly what that context was and what the work of art was intended to signify. These are not just random museum exhibits and, for as long as they are not seen as a whole, they are less than the sum of their parts.
I was lucky enough to learn Greek in Greece, when the Foreign Office still invested in such things, and I have lived in Cyprus. I have no doubt been influenced by that experience, but it has also enabled me to see the argument from the Greek perspective. For us, the marbles are just one exhibit—albeit a very important one—in our national museums, but for Greece they are part of the national identity and a national cultural cause. As we saw from what was, I am afraid, the slightly dismissive treatment of Prime Minister Mitsotakis the other week, they have the capacity to disrupt a relationship that really ought to be a lot better than it is.
We should try to find a solution, but I also wonder whether a loan is the right way forward. I admit that I am slightly unconvinced by it. It seems like a solution that has been shaped by the existence of the 1963 Act, which rightly prohibits the museum from alienating its collections. I am afraid that is a very necessary protection nowadays against the tendencies of too many museum curators. The problem with a loan is that it keeps the issue and the arguments alive when we should try to settle this for good.
My personal view is that it is a time for a grand gesture, and only the Government can make it. It is to offer to return the marbles as a one-off gift to Greece from this country, but as part of and on condition of a new, wider Anglo-Greek cultural partnership. That partnership could have three elements, but many others. First, a museum partnership, high-quality reproductions of the marbles in London plus an agreement by Greece to loan some of its most famous works of art, temporarily, in return—perhaps beyond London as well. Secondly, a wider cultural partnership, perhaps a bilateral foundation, largely financed by the, I am sure, many wealthy private individuals with an interest in this question, to try to take academic and scholarly collaboration to a new level, and an agreement to relax or eliminate restrictions—because the barriers are much stronger on the Greek side than ours—on language teaching, cultural work, artistic performance by each other’s citizens and so on. Thirdly, and finally, a joint campaign to return to Greece those parts of the marbles that are in other museums globally, for it should not be forgotten that, although the British Museum has most of those that are not in Athens, it does not have them all.
Such a partnership would have to definitively set aside for good the rights and wrongs of the original acquisition. It would also have to be clear that it was not a precedent for restitution demands for any other museum exhibit. But it would show that we actually mean it when we see the marbles as part of our common inheritance, and that we can move beyond the “What we have, we hold” approach we take on so many occasions. Perhaps we could rise to the occasion this time and make a deal.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and entirely agree with everything that he said. I think he said that the Parthenon sculptures sitting in the British Museum are less than the sum of their parts that they would be if they were together in their original context with their original structure. That reflects a recent article in the Times that talked about going into the Parthenon sculptures gallery and feeling the melancholy of exile. These marbles have been deprived of the charisma that ancient objects can have when they are in the place where they were made, created and lived with for thousands of years.
I was a volunteer at the British Museum for many years, and I am a passionate lover of the place. One thing I did as a volunteer was to stand in the galleries with ancient objects and give visitors the chance to hold them. One such object was a 350,000 year-old hand-axe from Kent. That was a magic object when you felt it in your hand, but it was a magic object in its place and time. You could feel the connection to the people—probably homo heidelbergensis, or possibly early Neanderthals—who lived before us on this island and whom you were experiencing in that moment. That is something that we are depriving the world—anyone who visits Athens—of, by taking the Parthenon sculptures away.
Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for the chance to have this debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who set out the case very well—I am not going to repeat it. I disagree with the noble Lord’s conclusions, which are very much contested. I am, perhaps typically as a Green, going to take this as a chance to think a bit more broadly. This is a chance to reassess the position of many objects in the British Museum—the Benin Bronzes are another very obvious example. Let us think about our museums, galleries and collections, and place this in the context of Britain’s place in the world. We hear a great deal of talk of Britain wishing to be world-leading in standing up for human rights and the rule of law, doing the right thing and promoting a proper international order. Let us think about that and about what we could actually do. I am no legal draftperson, but I am sure the Table Office could come up with a Bill that would see the Government directing museums, galleries and other institutions to make, over time, an assessment of their entire collections to see whether they have fair, just and rightful title to the objects in those collections.
I would ask the Government to provide some modest ongoing funding; I am not saying this is something that would happen in a year or even a decade. It could be an ongoing programme—and we can already identify some of the objects that would clearly be a problem.
Noble Lords may ask what this would achieve. I pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Allan, made about how the sculptures here in London send out a message of celebration, still, of that period of colonialism, exploitation, extraction and straight-out theft. We would be saying, “That’s not the kind of world we want to live in”. We want to build and create a new and different future that respects the rule of law and different cultures all around the world and that seeks to work with them to celebrate together the wonderful creativity of humans. That is a global tradition that belongs to everyone that should be all in its rightful place.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure I am not the only Member of this House who was embarrassed when our Prime Minister said he would not meet the Greek Prime Minister because of an argument about the Parthenon marbles. Whatever the rights and wrongs, if the British Government said to the Greek Prime Minister, “It’s a condition of our meeting you that you don’t mention the marbles”, that is simply quite absurd. This is not how we deal with friends, fellow NATO members and a fellow European country with which we have had a long period of friendship. I find that very embarrassing; we must restore our relations with Greece, because they have taken a bit of a knock. The Greek Prime Minister appeared on television and gave a very dignified response in impeccable English—I think that is how we should have behaved.
People say we cannot return the marbles to Athens because it would set a precedent—I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and therefore we must not do it because there would be demands for everything to be returned. I argue emphatically that the argument in favour of returning the marbles to Greece is that they are unique and so it would not set a precedent.
They are unique for a number of reasons. One is the unity of a great work of art. It is not a matter of returning the odd French impressionist to Paris; nor do we want to, and neither are the French asking us to. It should be a unified work of art, and therefore there is a case for it all to be together in its original home. Secondly, some other countries have already done this. I understand that there are parts of the Parthenon marbles that have been returned to Athens—I think the Austrians are considering doing the same thing. Then, of course, we have the precedent of the Benin Bronzes. But, above all—as I learned some years ago when I was discussing this with people in Greece—there is the significance of the Parthenon marbles in terms of culture and traditions. It is so important to the people of Greece; it matters so much to them; and we should respect their wish and their desire.
Then there is the argument about loaning or returning them. I appreciate that there is a difficulty because of the 1963 Act. Nevertheless, I think the right answer, in the fullness of time, will be to return the marbles to their rightful place in Athens. If it needs a change in legislation, that could be achieved—but, for heaven’s sake, we cannot forever fall out with our Greek friends on this issue. We can have replicas created and put in the British Museum, so if people want to see them without going to Athens they can do so. But the importance to the Greeks is something that I did not understand until I was in Athens and began talking to people. It is overwhelmingly significant for them, and we should respect that—it is the best way forward. They are our friends, they are fellow NATO members, and we need all the friends we have got as a country. The Greeks have been excellent friends, and they would be even better friends if we returned the marbles to them.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, if there were a way of returning the marbles to the Parthenon itself, there would be no debate. It would have happened years ago. What Byron called the “wanton and useless defacement” would have been undone. Who could resist seeing those magnificent artefacts in their proper place—their solidity combined with this ethereal feel of their bare, bleached, marmoreal splendour; their realism, the flowing robes and flared horses’ nostrils none the less combining with this idealised beauty? But the argument is about moving them from one museum to another, and therefore it seems that this debate turns on what a museum is for. The clue is in the etymology—museums are there to channel the Muses, to elevate and ennoble the condition of visitors. The most pertinent questions to ask, with the display of any artefacts, are: where will they best be looked after? Where will they be most accessible to specialists, scholars and students? Where will people most appreciate their cultural impact? Where will the greatest number of people get to see them?
I think that I am right in saying the British Museum was the first public institution to use “British” in its title, yet it never saw its aspiration as being national. It always saw its role as being encyclopaedic—a collection of curios from every continent. This is more unusual than you might think; if you go to the museums in Copenhagen, Budapest or Prague you will find museums that tell the story of a particular nation and people. If you go to the museums in Washington DC you find even more ethnic particularism—a Chinese American Museum, an African American museum, a Museum of the American Indian and so on—but the British Museum never saw itself in those terms. Confident, at least in the 18th century in its foundation, it saw itself as a repository for the greatest works of mankind. Neil MacGregor, the museum’s director between 2002 and 2015, put it like this:
“The museum remains a unique repository for the achievements of human endeavour, and there is no culture, past or present, that is not represented within its walls. It is truly the memory of mankind”.
What overrides that claim? The main argument that one hears, and we have heard it in the debate now, is one of, if you like, a communal cultural claim—“We live in a particular area and therefore we have a right”. That is a notion that is difficult to reconcile with ownership and contract. Even if it were true—and I actually do not think that we are remotely connected to whatever Neanderthal people made the hand-axe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was talking about; there was an ice age in between and the place was completely depopulated—I have no idea whether the Greeks of today are related to the Greeks of the time of the Parthenon. We are told by Constantine Porphyrogenitus that there was massive demographic displacement in the meantime, but even if they are—even if the Greek Prime Minister could claim personal lineal descent from Phidias—so what? If the noble Baroness’s great-grandmother had bought her house from mine I would not be able to turf her out because of some prior claim, because contract and ownership count for something.
I happen to agree with what my noble friend Lord Lexden quoted Professor Mary Beard as saying—that if you want to play the game of identity politics, then 200 years of being debated in this Chamber and revered, argued over, sketched and painted in this country also establishes some claim—but I do not think that is really the relevant criterion. The relevant criterion is one of ownership and if, as my noble friend Lord Frost says, these are the foundation of western art, then free contract is surely the foundation of western civilisation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, I would like to welcome this excellent short debate on the Elgin marbles. I want to stand back from the specifics of the “to loan or not to loan” argument, and avoid the tit-for-tat row over ownership, because I fear that this technical approach can distract us from why these sculptures really matter. We should not lose sight of the marbles’ value as sublime works of art, the quality of their artistry and what Virginia Woolf described as their “immense and enduring beauty” after millennia. I urge that we refocus the public discussion to the sculptures’ significance in the history of the accomplishments of western civilisation.
I was reminded of this when rereading Tiffany Jenkins’s excellent Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums … and Why They Should Stay There. I recommend that DMCS Ministers treat themselves to the book for Christmas. In it, Dr Jenkins details how the 1816 House of Commons Select Committee that investigated Lord Elgin’s proposed sale of the marbles to the nation not only found that he had acquired them legally, but broadened its deliberations to weigh up the sculptures’ aesthetic and cultural merits. It concluded that the marbles’ artistic magnificence was such that their presence in Britain had the potential to spark an artistic renaissance. The context for this appreciation, fuelled by Enlightenment values, was the 19th-century interest in ancient Greece and especially the inspiring classical model of Athenian democracy, which chimed with the democratic spirit of mass society emerging in Britain at the time.
What a contrast with 2023—anti-democratic trends are on the rise, and rather than publicly promoting these artefacts as inspiring embodiments of the world’s first democracy, policy retreats into uninspiring pedestrian legalese. Additionally, it has become fashionable not to celebrate but to demonise western civilisation. The Enlightenment and 19th-century cultural figures are routinely impugned as representing white supremacy, racist privilege, and so on.
Unsurprisingly, the dispute about the marbles has been dragged into the sordid anti-western discourse, and we are told that the return of the sculptures would be a positive act of decolonisation. But like so much of today’s philistine, politicised use of the past to score contemporary identitarian points, it bears little relation to historic facts. The notion that the return of the marbles would be reparation for what was stolen by British colonialists 200 years ago is misleading. When Lord Elgin acquired the marbles, Greece was under the thumb of the Ottoman Empire, not the British Empire. Indeed, the Ottomans were happy to sell them; they were indifferent to 19th-century Hellenism or democratic virtues of ancient Athens or anywhere else, and the Acropolis served as a garrison at the time.
Despite such inconvenient facts, there is growing pressure on all museums to repatriate their artefacts in general. Worse, too many who work in the sector behave as though their institutions are little more than repositories of ill-gotten gains of a shameful, colonial, slave-owning past. We should instead demand that they act as public servants, trusted by democratic society to curate the world’s treasures as guardians of historic scholarship and artistic appreciation.
In this context, it is crucial that the Government urge the British Museum not to fudge the issue in the name of political expediency or diplomatic niceties. I worry that talk of loans seems to do just that. Can the Minister promise to unapologetically defend housing Elgin’s precious marbles within London’s encyclopaedic collections, as an aid to a universal understanding of human culture?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. The speech of my noble friend Lord Lexden was like a wonderful thriller; the conclusion was not clear until the end, but it was a marvellous conclusion to have and a wonderful narrative to get there. It is a great opportunity to speak in a debate called by my former boss, who is also the former boss of the chairman of the British Museum—so we know where the real power to make a decision lies.
It is also the first opportunity in my life—and probably the last—to say that I agreed with every word that my noble friend Lord Frost said. He got it precisely right. This is not about looking back; it is looking forward at an extraordinary opportunity. It is about reuniting a unique piece of art, and if you ask, “Where should that be housed: in the British Museum or in the shadow of the Parthenon?”, we all know what the answer is. It is a great opportunity to make an extraordinary gesture towards our friends and allies the Greek people, and a great opportunity to forge an enduring bond between the British Museum and the Greek people, which will see unbelievable and unique treasures come to the British Museum, maintaining its status as one of the pre-eminent Hellenic museums in the world.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I also express my gratitude for the ability to speak in the gap, and thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for this debate. I also declare my interest as a supporter of the Parthenon Project, whose purpose is to share cultural and educational interests way beyond the marbles and much wider than is suggested even by George Osborne. I cannot deal with details in the time allowed, so I simply say that this is not about losing anything; this is potentially a win-win situation, if we can share. It is about the future, not the past.
I sometimes think this debate about the Elgin marbles is really—and I excuse everybody present today—like grumpy old men talking about teenage sex and merely the grubby bits. It misses the point. We are talking here about building relationships, about creating something that is bigger and better. It is called soft power. We keep talking about soft power, so why do we not do some of it? In this world where we see distortion, deceit and betrayal around us, is it not time for us to, for want of better words, fall in love again with our friends and allies and move on and create a brighter and better future filled with beauty for us all?
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to pause and give room for the last two contributions. I will start with a message to the Minister which might help him in his reply. In December 2011, I was in his position replying to a debate about a pardon for Alan Turing. I stood up and gave the set government reply, which had also been the reply of the previous Labour Government. Two years later, in 2013, when I had left the ministry, the then Secretary of State stood up and announced a pardon for Alan Turning, and all the careful wording I had used in explaining why we could not go against previous legislation or previous decisions just went. The Government had decided that it was necessary in the spirit of the day to pardon Alan Turing. The only thing left of this is that if you look me up in any of the reference books you will find a very helpful line saying: “Lord McNally refused a pardon for Alan Turing in 2011”. No, I did not; I was reflecting the policy of the Government of the day, as the Minister will be in a few minutes.
In a way, a lot of the legal and historical arguments do not match the fact that we are changing our views of what museums are for and their role in their societies and the world. By God, it will keep me awake tonight, but I am fully in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said: this is a dilemma with a solution that is an opportunity. It a chance for us to play on the big stage in a confident way about how we see our heritage and our future.
Some of the ideas put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I have put forward in previous debates. There is ample opportunity to have a permanent partnership between Greece and Britain, between the British Museum and the Acropolis Museum, which would be a world standard in co-operation and exchange. One thing I do know, coming into the early autumn of my career in politics, is that the idea that if you send the Parthenon marbles to Greece on loan, you will ever get them back is disappearing into fantasy. They are of such special and unique importance that the political craft is to set an agreement between our two Governments and two museums that will leave the marbles where they should be in Athens but also leave a legacy for both museums of co-operation and exchange which is far more to the credit of both countries than this sterile old argument.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I thank him for enabling this valuable debate to take place today. I reflect that the debate shows just how differently history can be interpreted by people with different views and perspectives, and those interpretations make for an interesting discussion.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I found some interesting points of coincidence of view with people that I would not necessarily have thought I would agree with. I found a lot to agree with in what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, particularly about the value and importance of museum partnerships.
Surely the point here is that this is very much a matter for the British Museum to sort out. George Osborne has been very vocal on this point. If the museum and the Greek Government feel that a loan deal is an appropriate way forward, why would we want to stand in the way? It seems to be a path that it would be wise to take to enable the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was talking about to happen. It would form a valuable pathway to bringing back some sense and rationality to this debate.
If we want a good example of recent initiatives in that direction, we need to look no further than the Horniman Museum. Some say might say it was brave, but I think it took a sensible and well thought-through course of action in restoring the Benin bronzes and plaques to Nigeria. Of course the Horniman is not subject to any legislative constraints whereas the British Museum and other national museums are, but neither are regional museums. I talk regularly to the new director and chief executive of two museums as I am a board member of the Royal Pavilion and Museums Trust and the People’s History Museum. We have sensible policies that enable us to have a discourse with those who believe that artefacts should be returned. We operate within that framework, and good practice should rule the field.
The Prime Minister seemed shocked to discover that the Greek Prime Minister wanted the return of the marbles and, rather than have a grown-up conversation about it, he chose to throw his toys out of the pram. That is not national leadership, and it is not what the country needs at this time. George Osborne has been leading sensible discussions about this issue for a long period. As I have said, these are very much matters for the British Museum and the Greek Government to discuss, and we are not going to get involved in a legislative argument on this or spend the sort of government time that some wish to by having a dispute.
It is wrong that we have picked a fight with a NATO ally just for the sake of a headline. That shows how weak our Prime Minister has become. The Prime Minister should have been talking about things such as the economy, immigration and the Middle East. That is what the country should expect from a leader, but Rishi Sunak is no leader. When our leader met his Greek counterpart, he rightly focused on those very issues.
I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say to this. I suspect he will declare that it is not a matter of great interest to him directly, but maybe he will surprise us all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing today’s debate on what he rightly describes as magnificent treasures of civilisation, objects that, as he said in his opening, have long provoked lively debate in this country and elsewhere.
It is important to be clear that the UK and His Majesty’s Government do not own the Parthenon sculptures, which were lawfully acquired under the law pertaining at the time. They are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum, which is independent of the Government.
My noble friend is right to take exception to some of the vitriol and ahistorical claims that have been levelled against the late Lord Elgin. As ambassador to the Sublime Porte of the Ottoman Empire, of which Athens, at the time when he acquired the marbles, had been a part for three and a half centuries, he acted with the permission of the Ottoman Empire and moved about half of the sculptures that remained from the ruins of the Parthenon in Athens. They were purchased by Lord Elgin, the Government purchased them from him and then Parliament made the decision—indeed, it passed an Act of Parliament—to give them to the British Museum in 1816.
I have referred to the ruins. Sadly, most of these exquisite objects have been damaged or lost to humanity, in particular as a result of the tragedy in 1687, when Venetian bombardment ignited the munitions that the Ottomans had stored in the Parthenon, blowing the roof off and doing irreparable damage to many of the marbles. Of those that survive today, about half remain in Athens. There is a roughly equal amount in London, but important pieces are also held by other European museums, including the Louvre, in Paris, and museums in Denmark, Austria and Germany.
As my noble friend and others noted, in the 1970s, the Greek Government began a programme of restoration of the Acropolis monuments. As part of that work, all the remaining sculptures from the Parthenon were removed to the Acropolis Museum; none can therefore be seen in their original setting. The first formal request for the removal of the Elgin marbles in the British Museum was made by the Greek Government in 1983 and was formally rejected by the UK Government in 1984. Neither Government’s position has significantly changed since then.
Unlike a number of other countries, museums in the UK are independent of the state; they are not run or owned by the Government. Museums are charitable institutions run for the benefit of the public, and responsibility for their collections rests with their trustees; the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, was right to say, in a variety of ways, that most are not covered by statute and that some are covered in differing ways.
The British Museum’s governing legislation is the British Museum Act 1963. This prohibits the British Museum, along with a number of other national museums, deaccessioning objects in its collection except in certain circumstances, such as when there is a duplicate; when an item has significantly deteriorated; when, in the case of human remains, they are less than 1,000 years old; or when they are items that were spoliated during the German Third Reich. There are no plans to change this law, and I did not detect from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, a clamouring for it from the Benches opposite.
The position of the trustees of the British Museum is that there is an advantage and a public benefit in having the sculptures divided between great museums, including the Acropolis Museum in Athens and the British Museum in London, each telling a complementary but different story. In the first half of this year, the British Museum had nearly 3.3 million visitors, so it is returning to pre-Covid levels, when it regularly saw 6 million visitors a year. Visitors to Bloomsbury can see the marbles in their full glory, free of charge. By way of comparison, the Acropolis Museum in Athens had 1.2 million visitors in the last year before the pandemic, and charged them €15 in the summer and €10 in the winter. The British Museum is glad to share its treasures with the world; people from all over the world come to see them.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, asked what my view is. I think that that is a good position: people from around the world can see these exquisite objects in London, Athens and the other European countries I mentioned. On those that are in Bloomsbury, John Keats was moved to poetry on seeing them, while Auguste Rodin was inspired to create a sculpture. I have had the pleasure of seeing them in both the British Museum and the Acropolis Museum in Athens; both are superb institutions, and we learn a lot about these objects on visits to both.
Noble Lords are right to talk about the importance of loaning objects, which is fundamental to a museum’s purpose. Section 4 of the British Museum Act expressly allows the trustees of the British Museum to loan objects in the collection for public exhibition. Before lending any objects, the British Museum enters into legally binding agreements with the relevant borrowing institution. Those agreements contain various assurances and protections, including about the safety of the objects while on loan. The British Museum has said for many years that it would consider a loan of the sculptures to Greece as long as its normal conditions for loans were met. Indeed, it has loaned some of the Elgin marbles in the past. As noble Lords may know, the headless statue of the river god Ilissos was loaned to the Hermitage, in St Petersburg, as part of that museum’s 250th anniversary nine years ago.
The Acropolis Museum is an important partner for the British Museum. An exquisite object is on loan from the British Museum to the Acropolis Museum at the moment—the Meidias Hydria vase—and previous items have been loaned to the Acropolis Museum. A prerequisite for a loan is the acknowledgement of the borrowing institution that the British Museum owns the object on loan. Sadly, the Greek Culture Minister, Dr Lina Mendoni, in a recent response to a question from a Greek MP, acknowledged that the Meidias Hydria was acquired in 1772 by the British Museum and ownership is not disputed, but went on to say that that does not apply to the Parthenon marbles in her view and that there is no question of a lease or loan of these. It is very difficult therefore to see how a loan could be agreed between the British Museum and the Greek Government while that remains their position.
If the Greek Government changed their position—that seems like a big “if”; it has been their position for all of my life—it would require an open individual export licence, which allows museums to send an object on loan for up to a maximum of three years. Crucially, the open export licence can be used only if it is guaranteed that an object will return at the end of the loan.
My noble friend Lord Lexden asked about the reports made of loans of five or up to 15 years. As I said, the open export licence provides for a maximum of three years. Given the legitimate questions raised in this hypothetical scenario about the items being returned, I think it would be important that any loan not extend beyond the tenure of any of the trustees who agreed it. They should be in a position to ensure that the guarantee required in the open export licence is made.
I end by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and many others, who spoke about the warm friendship between this Government and the Greek Government. The Greeks are good friends. I spoke last night at an event concerning some Greek marble in London, which both I and the Greek Government are very keen to see moved swiftly. In 1882, a splendid statue of Lord Byron was erected in Hyde Park by public subscription; it stands on 57 tonnes of beautiful red and white marble, which was donated by the Greek Government in appreciation and gratitude for Lord Byron’s support for Greek independence. For more than 60 years, it has been stranded on an island far less enticing and accessible than those of the Peloponnese, which Lord Byron frequented, because of the coming of Park Lane. I have been working with our colleagues at the Royal Parks and with the support of the Greek ambassador in London to try to have it moved into the park proper, so that it can be seen and enjoyed. I hope that can be done next year, which is the 200th anniversary year of the death of Lord Byron.
I wanted to end on that happy note, because, while this is a long-running debate, it does not get in the way of the great friendship and co-operation between the Greek people and the British people, nor of either of their Governments.
North Korea
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Swire
That this House takes note of the current threat posed by North Korea.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I have been asked by a number of Members of this House why we are having a debate on the DPRK—North Korea—this afternoon. Why now? What has materially changed? I went to the Library a few moments ago and asked when North Korea had been debated either in this House or the other place. The answer was that it was debated in this place in 2017, in a debate instigated by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and in the other place in an Adjournment debate brought by Andrew Selous in 2014, and to which I answered as the Minister of State in the Foreign Office at that time. Many things have changed in the world since that time and many things have changed certainly in North Korea.
I worry sometimes about the bandwidth we have for foreign policy. How often do we debate or even speak about Afghanistan? How often do we speak about what is going on in Syria or in Yemen? We are focused always on the issue at hand, which at the current time is mainly Israel and Gaza. We seem to ignore all these other things, but that does not mean to say that bad things are not developing when our backs are turned.
Whenever we talk about the DPRK, there is a big international move to condemn it or bring about some kind of conference or forth. Then we all go away and forget about it. When we come back to see what has happened, the result is always materially worse. One day, we might seriously regret our lack of attention. If this debate achieves anything, I hope it concentrates the minds of those who are following it, not least those in Pyongyang who will no doubt be given a copy of it, however sanitised.
The fundamental thing that has changed since 2017, or certainly since 2014, is the increased part played by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as part of an unhealthy, unwelcome and, frankly, dangerous anti-Western axis. In the time allocated to me, I intend to highlight what is going on internally in that country, expose what it is doing on the international stage and make some suggestions for His Majesty’s Government.
Lockdown has been going on for some time in North Korea. The country closed down completely and expelled the British embassy from Pyongyang—all embassies except the Russian, Chinese and Cuban embassies and a handful of others. Our ambassador has not been allowed back and the country is still using the excuse of Covid and lockdown, despite it accrediting a new ambassador from China in July.
Of course, lockdown suits the regime, because it means that no international observers can visit the country. This has coincided, unsurprisingly, with a huge crackdown on dissent. Prison camps are full. Some are there not for sins that they have committed but for sins allegedly committed by their fathers and their fathers’ fathers. We are increasingly seeing clamp-downs on watching South Korean films or listening to South Korean music—some crimes punishable by death, if caught.
Then there is malnutrition. Although there is no evidence of the mass starvation that we saw in the 1990s, there is evidence that some parts of the country are suffering deeply from a lack of food. In fact, there has been a complete breakdown in the public distribution of food. The regime has made it illegal to move food privately from one area to another, which suggests a very real problem.
But we are dealing with an opaque regime which, incidentally, has been hit by sanctions. Even those of a Panglossian disposition would find it hard to say anything good about the DPRK or its regime. Kim Jong-un presides over one of the most repressive regimes in the world and certainly over one of the most egregious human rights regimes, systematically abusing its people, of anywhere in the planet.
I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who are in their places, who together have kept the issue of North Korea going in the British Parliament. I pay tribute to them both and acknowledge the brave people who have tried to escape from the hell that is North Korea. I have met some of them in Seoul, in the past, and they are incredibly brave, as are those—indeed, they are even braver—who have helped others to escape. I wonder if the Minister, who has been asked this in the House before, has any knowledge of the 50 Christians who were sent back from China to North Korea, what representations the Government have made about those people and whether any of them are safe or even alive.
It is easy and sometimes tempting to depict Kim Jong-un, with his cult following and his Potemkin villagers, as a rather grotesque, Monty Python-esque figure of fun. All the evidence suggests that this is very far from the truth and that he is an individual who is very focused on certain things which are dear to him—above all, the maintenance of his family’s regime. I believe that increasingly bringing his daughter along to his public appearances is evidence that he intends for this regime to continue. It is his way of demonstrating to the people of North Korea that the Kim regime will continue after his death.
The relationship between Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang is of interest. I think it is largely transactional, not ideological, because their common enemy is the West, most particularly the United States. Interestingly, in the vote at the UN on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia was supported in that instance only by Belarus, Eritrea, Syria and the DPRK. The Chinese did not support it. There are areas of difference between the two countries.
Russia is the new player in all this. Relations have certainly picked up since the summit with Putin. We are led to believe that Russia is providing drones, satellite technology, body armour and so forth to the regime in Pyongyang. In return, the Russians are getting shells, some of which are already being used in Ukraine, although there are questions as to their quality. The shells are being transported by train, and the missiles by ship to Vladivostok. There is also evidence that the DPRK who, incidentally, are also serial proliferators of arms and munitions, have been providing arms to the Wagner Group, as well as to others. Some of the Hamas arms provided by Iran were also manufactured originally by the DPRK.
China is currently working closely in tandem with the DPRK, though there is now evidence that the Chinese are increasingly concerned about the direction of travel in the relationship and the closeness between the DPRK and Russia. At the end of the day, if anyone owns the relationship with the DPRK, it is China. China is confronted with a series of pretty difficult choices and bad options, ranging from the possibility of a reunified peninsula which may be democratic and Western-leaning—given the geographical positioning of the peninsula, this is not agreeable to China. Full-on war between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea, again, would draw other actors into the area and lead to mass migration into China—something the Chinese fear as well. Much of this may now change because of Russia’s increasing collaboration with the DPRK on the nuclear programme. In the absence of any other options, I believe that China prefers the status quo—for the time being at any rate.
What has the international response been to this incremental ratcheting-up by the regime in North Korea? In all fairness, the Biden Administration have provided more support to Japan and helped bring Japan and South Korea together in a way that, some years ago, many thought would be impossible, given their complicated mutual history. America has already helped build up a relationship with the Philippines. We should not forget that the last attempt to confront and do a deal with Kim Jong-un was made by Donald Trump at the Hanoi summit. It was a failure which left Kim Jong-un embarrassed. He lost face because there was ultimately no deal with the Americans. If anything, it drove him more towards Russia.
At the last American presidential election but one, which saw Trump elected, the default position of HMG in those days was to support the Clinton regime. We were not even allowed to engage with the Trump camp. In retrospect, that was a huge mistake. I got into some hot water by saying that I thought Donald Trump would win. I say to your Lordships this afternoon that I think it is not impossible that Donald Trump might win once more, however desirable or not that may be. I hope that the Government will start to reach out as the Republican nominee forms a shadow Administration, because we may well face that same situation once more, in which case we can expect all kinds of new initiatives.
We know what Kim Jong-un wants: he wants to maintain his regime at all costs; he wants to be recognised, de jure, as a nuclear state—incidentally, he has studied closely what has happened to those who have given up nuclear weapons—he wants diplomatic relations with the United States; and he wants massive economic aid. Of course, none of these will be remotely possible if the DPRK continues with its illegal weapons programme.
Doing nothing is fraught with danger. There is a real concern now that something could go wrong in relations between Seoul and Pyongyang, because the North Koreans are not even picking up the telephone hotline between the two, so the risk of escalation or unintended consequences is very real and present. That is why I believe the Government should do a number of things. First, I believe they should push to re-establish the six-party talks: we would be in the 20th year of them if they were still happening. I also believe, and I have always believed, that there is a role for the United Kingdom in those six-party talks: I would like to see them become seven-party talks.
Secondly, I believe we should press the DPRK to immediately allow all international agencies back into the country, and back in together.
Thirdly, I believe we should push very hard for the reopening of the British embassy in Pyongyang so that our ambassador can take up his post.
Fourthly, and others may want to say more on this subject, we should devote more resource to countering the DPRK’s cyber programme. It is getting cleverer and cleverer at cryptocurrency theft and ransomware: 30% or 40% of the funding of its illegal weapons programme is now coming from this source, from the Lazarus Group and others, who are thought to have stolen $2 billion since 2017. This is something that, with our partners, we really have to double down on and deal with.
Fifthly, I believe that, with allies, we should push to increase sanctions. The North Koreans are masterful at evading sanctions, so we should certainly have sanctions on the leaders in that country but we should also have secondary sanctions. This has a wider application, and I think we should do it more often with other countries where we sanction people. There are those who get away: the personal shoppers; the people who manage the London real estate; the people who look after the yachts and the holiday homes. Anybody who has any connection with the leaders of a rogue regime should also suffer sanctions. We need to do much more in this area, complicated though I know it is.
Finally, we should work with our allies and the International Criminal Court on holding DPRK officials to account. Although it is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, as some other countries unfortunately are not, I believe we need to show countries such as this that if they continue to violate international norms by joining in axes against western democracies, they need to be held to account. If they continue to treat their own population in the way that they have, they also must face the full force of international law. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, in a powerful introductory speech, has set the scene brilliantly in providing us with an analytical and sharp analysis of the situation in North Korea. The whole House is indebted to him for initiating this important debate. I declare my role as co-chair, with Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, and my non-financial interests in the register.
It is 70 years since the Korean War armistice. Millions died in that war, including more than 1,000 British service personnel, who lost their lives fighting for the freedoms now enjoyed in the south but not in the north. Last weekend we commemorated the 75th anniversaries of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the convention on the crime of genocide. The UDHR was to be
“a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”.
Keep its universal application in mind as we consider North Korea. Keep it in mind in reflecting on an interview just last week with an escapee who had managed to get out of North Korea, with his family, in a small boat. Among other things, he described how he had been forced to watch the execution of a 22 year-old man who had been caught listening to South Korean music and watching banned movies.
Keep our commitment to the UDHR and the genocide convention in mind as we consider that 2023 is also the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations commission of inquiry into human rights violations in North Korea. Led by the eminent Australian jurist his honour Mr Michael Kirby, it was, in the words of the United Nations, mandated
“to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular for violations which may amount to crimes against humanity”.
When it reported in 2014, it concluded that North Korea is “a state without parallel”. It called for North Korea to be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. Indeed, in pursuing the failure of the UN to take forward the recommendations of the UN’s own inquiry, our all-party parliamentary group established a parliamentary inquiry. It followed up the continuation of human rights violations in North Korea from 2014 until 2021, and found that nothing much had changed in that respect since 2014. If anything, the situation was even worse.
The UN commission of inquiry left open the question of whether a genocide is taking place. Since then, further evidence has emerged of the deliberate targeting of religious groups, which would fall within the convention’s definition. I argue that the convention needs to be widened to include the targeting of political classes, whom Stalin’s Soviet Union did not wish—for good reason—to see included in 1948. The commission of inquiry found that, over five decades, hundreds of thousands of prisoners had been exterminated in political prison camps, and that in the lifetime of three generations, entire groups of people, including families with their children, had perished in those death camps because of who they were, not for any actions they had carried out. It was certainly an intent to eliminate, but not genocide in a technical sense. Justice Kirby proposed a new term, politicide, to describe the atrocities. The commission unanimously concluded that the state has committed crimes in North Korea that definitely amount, in a technical sense, to crimes against humanity, and it concluded that those responsible should be arraigned before the courts and brought to justice.
In this 75th year of both the genocide convention and the universal declaration, it is worth returning to the foundation documents. In the case of the UDHR, it is difficult to see which of the 30 articles, if any, North Korea is not in breach of.
Article 1 of the UDHR insists that:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.
Article 3 insists that:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
Without that right to life, of course, all other rights are worthless. Article 4 abjures slavery, yet 90% of the wages of North Koreans who are able to work overseas are confiscated. Article 5 asserts that torture, mental or physical,
“inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
is not permissible. Article 6 insists on the rule of law. Article 12 states that no one will be subjected to arbitrary interference with privacy, family or home. Article 13 requires the right to leave a country. Article 14 states that where there is persecution, other countries must provide asylum. Article 17 provides
“the right to own property”.
Article 18 upholds the right to religious belief. Article 19 supports
“the right to freedom of opinion and expression”
and to seek and receive information regardless of frontiers. Article 21 provides for democratic government. Article 25 deals with the right to food and care, and Article 26 with the right to education.
How far North Korea is derelict in breaching article after article of the UDHR, and how far the international community has been derelict in failing to act on the findings of the UN’s own commission of inquiry, can be seen by a cursory examination of the COI’s findings.
It unequivocally concluded that North Korea had systematically violated human rights, including freedom of thought, expression and religion, the right to food, and more besides. The state has committed crimes against humanity including—in the COI’s exact words—
“extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation”.
It found
“systematic, widespread and gross … unspeakable atrocities … on a vast scale”,
amounting to
“crimes against humanity”,
and Justice Kirby said they were
“strikingly similar”
to crimes committed by Nazi Germany. The COI said the gross violations and crimes are
“ongoing … because the policies, institutions and patterns of impunity that lie at their heart remain in place”.
That was true in 2014; it is true now.
In the light of the evidence which has emerged from those thousands of escapees—there are around 30,000 in the Republic of Korea and there are about 1,000 in this country—Karim Khan KC, the prosecutor for the ICC, should examine further the testimonies of those who were incarcerated, or whose loved ones perished in the prison camps, because of their beliefs and consider whether this does indeed meet the test of genocide convention. If he is unable to do this because of the likely blocking vetoes of China or Russia—as in the case of the failure to refer the COI findings to the ICC—an independent people’s tribunal should be established to consider that evidence. This could be modelled on the very successful Independent Uyghur Tribunal that looked at the evidence of genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, and was chaired by the eminent lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice KC.
In 2017, the UN Human Rights Council voted to look for legal strategies for eventual prosecutions and authorised the creation of a central repository for evidence—which was the right call—but prosecution has not occurred. I hope the Minister, who I know has followed this in great detail and cares about it as passionately as I do, will tell us more about where the accountability process and the question of impunity have now reached.
Changes of Administration in both the Republic of Korea and the United States have also played their part in dampening the quest for accountability, although I strongly welcome the Republic of Korea’s most recent insistence—echoed in a conversation I was privileged to have with President Yoon during his very welcome recent visit to the United Kingdom and to this Parliament—that his Government will champion the human rights of North Koreans. That is very welcome indeed.
While international justice for crimes is needed, we must also look at other options, including under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Such prosecutions in the UK would most likely not be possible because of the very limited scope of Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2002. This is an issue that has been raised by experts in the field and the noble Lord is aware of it. Until we reform our law—which perhaps an incoming Government might consider doing—other countries, such as Germany and Argentina, which have broader universal jurisdiction, should be encouraged to address the growing impunity for these atrocity crimes in North Korea.
On 15 November of this year, the UN General Assembly adopted, by consensus in the Third Committee, a resolution on the situation of human rights in the DPRK. It drew attention to
“all-pervasive and severe restrictions, including an absolute monopoly on information and total control over organised social life … further tightened by Covid 19 prevention measures”.
The resolution related that these measures have led to
“food insecurity, severe hunger, malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardship in the population”.
The prison camps, with an estimated 100,000 people being held there, are characterised by torture, brutality and degradation.
This is a country which, according to the 2021 report of the US State Department, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, spends a staggering $4 billion on armaments, an estimated 26% of its GDP—the highest proportion among the 170 countries it reviewed. Yet it is also a country where people starve and live in acute poverty, while its leaders wallow in luxury. The Telegraph reported earlier this week that dictator Kim had been seen riding in four new foreign vehicles, including a $200,000 armoured Mercedes-Maybach sedan. It brings to mind comparisons with the Communist dictatorship of Ceausescu in Romania.
In the face of all that, it was therefore surprising—as the noble Lord, Lord Swire, alluded to—that, on 8 December, the UK Government announced a package of sanctions targeting individuals linked to human rights abuses around the world. However, despite announcing a total of 46 sanctions, the Government did not impose any sanctions on certain North Korean individuals and entities about whom overwhelming evidence, including the FCDO’s own annual human rights reports, demonstrates their responsibility for serious human rights violations. Although it is welcome news that the UK is actively using the global human rights sanctions regime—Magnitsky sanctions—to hold to account officials in Belarus, Haiti, Iran and Syria who are complicit in repressing individual freedoms, why was there no mention of North Korea? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
It also underlines why a parliamentary Select Committee should be given power to meet in camera, where necessary, to oversee this opaque and random process. Over the years, I have made over 400 interventions about North Korea in Parliament—in Questions, letters and meetings around this building. It is 21 years since I first raised the issue of the repatriation of escapees, which the noble Lord, Lord Swire, touched on. I did so in that first instance after a North Korean escapee came here to give his testimony. He described the plight of repatriated refugees:
“Some have been executed … When returned, they face torture, interrogation, and humiliation. Any woman who is returned and became pregnant while in China is forcibly aborted, supposedly to avoid the birth of babies ‘contaminated’ by foreign influences. There are reports of repatriated North Koreans being corralled and bound together, with wire being passed around their wrists and through their noses”.
That was testimony given in the Moses Room here in the Palace of Westminster.
Hundreds more were recently repatriated, and I have repeatedly urged the Government to raise this failure to protect refugees with the People’s Republic of China, not least because the Republic of Korea is willing to give sanctuary and a new life to every single one of them. I have received the supine and hand-washing response that
“it is for the parties involved to interpret their obligations under this agreement”.—[Official Report, 30/4/03; col. WA 104.]
We are talking about the 1951 refugee convention, of which China, which sits on the UN Human Rights Council, is in breach.
My noble friend Lady Cox, with whom I have travelled to North Korea, will speak specifically about the targeting of religious adherents, but the UN commission concluded that
“there is an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
The charity Open Doors has again listed North Korea in 2023—for the 19th time out of 20 years—as the state in which, worldwide, Christians face the greatest level of persecution.
In the face of all this, we must do more than making weak-tea statements of concern. We must call out issues such as forced repatriation, the breaking of sanctions over weapons of mass destruction, the links to Putin’s war machine and the day-to-day violation of human rights—and, specifically, a referral of the commission of inquiry report to the ICC. We must continue to break the information blockade—not by short-sighted reductions in the BBC Korea service—which the APPG campaigned to initiate.
Let me end on a hopeful note. In 2016, the then North Korean ambassador and his deputy asked to see me. He read me a long denunciation for raising cases of human rights and providing a platform for escapees. His deputy had been given the task of compiling all my Hansard speeches and interventions in this House. He subsequently told me that it was his job to be my spy. A few weeks after my defenestration, Mr Thae Yong-ho and his family defected. He later told me that, through his observance of our parliamentary democracy and way of life, he had been convinced by the democratic case for freedom, human rights and the rule of law. Today Mr Thae is an elected Member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, representing the Gangnam district of Seoul. He recently took part online in a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group focusing on the likely fate of the escapees being repatriated by China. I hope that he is the advance party for what will one day be a united Korea that upholds the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and gives its people the freedoms and liberties enjoyed here, and indeed in the Republic of Korea.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, it is such a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is such an incredible subject-matter expert. I rise to make a brief and narrow contribution to this important debate, specifically on the role that the Royal Navy has played in enforcing sanctions. Enforcing sanctions is never easy, but we are fortunate that the Royal Navy has a permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific, comprised of two offshore patrol vessels: HMS “Tamar” and HMS “Spey”.
I declare an interest as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Singapore, and I had the pleasure of visiting HMS “Spey” two weeks ago. HMS “Tamar” has already played an important role enforcing UN sanctions targeting North Korea’s illegal weapons programme. The ship patrolled the East China Sea, in very rough sea conditions, ensuring that items destined for illicit activities were not able to make it to North Korea. This is the first Royal Navy permanent presence in the Indo-Pacific since the handover of Hong Kong to China. It is because of this presence that, just a few weeks ago, during the state visit of the President of South Korea, we were able to sign an agreement, the first of its type, committing to joint enforcement of sanctions resolutions.
Our offshore patrol vessels are small, just 90 metres long—in fact, Kim Jong-un is known to have luxury yachts larger than that, complete with waterslides, all while his citizens suffer from extreme poverty—but in this case, size does not matter. In fact, we are better off having smaller ships in the region. They have tremendous capability and are very well suited for the region and the specific job at hand. In fact, they are perfect for capability-matching with Indo-Pacific nations that we work closely with. Larger vessels can sometimes overwhelm the host nations’ maritime forces. The design of these ships enables us to show the flag very effectively. They have an adaptable flight deck and bunk space for 50 people in case they are required for humanitarian assistance and disaster response across the region.
It is critical that we keep them there. The region wants them; the region welcomes them. They are an enduring presence that also builds and reinforces cultural links, including to more neglected parts of the region, in a less demanding or provocative way than a larger warship. I hope the Minister will join me in paying tribute to the ship’s companies of HMS “Spey” and HMS “Tamar”. I know he will agree that we must not take them for granted. To keep them going, a tremendous amount of work goes into ensuring personnel and supplies are in the right place at the right time. This is no easy task. It is the tyranny of distance.
We need to consider now what we do beyond 2028 when their scheduled deployment finishes. Should we deploy Type 31s to the region? Probably, but as an addition to, not a replacement for, our offshore petrol vessels. I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Swire for securing this very important debate and for his longstanding contributions to safety and security in the region.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for securing a very important debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his very long and incredibly hard-working contribution to ensuring that these issues do not disappear entirely off the British government agenda and are brought to the public’s attention.
The condition and behaviour of North Korea is one of the crucial issues on the global geopolitical stage today. That is one reason why I am standing to speak in this Thursday afternoon debate. The other is a personal, historic connection. In 1998, 25 years ago, I was on the streets of Pyongyang. I was there as a tourist, having written on my visa application in my own handwriting, “I am not a writer or journalist of any kind”. It so happened that the first article I wrote for the Guardian Weekly, of which I subsequently became editor, was about Pyongyang. I was a lot younger then and did things that perhaps I would not do now.
It was a chance for me, as an Australian who came to Europe after the Berlin Wall had come down, to get some insight, no matter how constrained or limited, into that kind of society. It was the last society of that kind left in 1998. I really understood all in new ways after being in that society in Pyongyang. The last morning, I slipped—or at least I think I slipped—my oversight guards and was able to walk out on the streets of Pyongyang on my own. I understood what it was to be a non-person because everyone, for reasons I entirely understand, looked through me as though they could not see me. They did not want to acknowledge me. A street sweeper swept around my feet without ever acknowledging my existence. The only people who did were a line of 10 year-olds who were about to enter a building and did not have a teacher with them. They were smiling and saying, “There’s a foreigner over there” to each other. I waved at them and they waved back.
Those 10 year-olds would now be about 35 years old. They will never have known what it would be like to live in a society with any kind of freedom or opportunity, but it is really important that we look at the broader history of Korea here. If we look back over its history, from about 1876 onwards Japan exerted a continuing, crushing influence on the Korean people. The great Empress, Myeongseong, was assassinated by the Japanese in 1895 and Japan formally established colonialism in 1910. For the people of North Korea there is, going back many generations, no kind of sense of a state or society that gives them any kind of real hope or normality or any sense that there was an attempt to work for the common good.
We all know what difficulties there were in the reunification of Germany. When we think about the situation that the North Korean people are in, we need to think about how difficult that was. To pick up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it was reported in the Economist that on 9 October, when North Korea finally lifted the Covid blockade, up to 600 people were bundled out of Chinese prisons and deported to North Korea. The nature of all such reports means it is so often difficult to disentangle fact and detail, but I think there is no doubt that a significant number of people were in that situation. Everything we know tells us that those people, if they are not dead now, are in an horrendous situation. As the noble Lord said, it is terribly important that we assert the right to asylum and refugee status for the people of North Korea—for everybody, but acknowledging that North Koreans are acutely in need of that. The term “refoulement” has been much in discussion lately; clearly, this is a case where there must not be refoulement.
I also want to pick up some points made by the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Alton, about hunger and food insecurity in North Korea. Going back to my visit in 1998—the noble Lord, Lord Swire, talked about how bad things were there in the 1990s—that was when I really grasped a word that had been merely hypothetical for me before “gleaning”, gleaning the leavings of the harvest from the fields. What I saw in the fields of North Korea, just outside Pyongyang, was a long line of maybe 20 or 30 middle-aged women who were going through a rice field. Each of them had at her waist a small purse. They were not young women, but they were picking up individual grains of rice and were going to get, at most, a small purseful from several hours’ work. That is a real measure of hunger.
We know that in March this year, the G7 Foreign Ministers noted the dire humanitarian situation. We have heard a lot about the regime’s exotic, luxurious lifestyle, but we are also talking about weapons of mass destruction and ballistic weapons programmes, into which vast amounts of resources are going. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Alton, about the need to think about sanctions, but sanctions that do not force those middle-aged women out to hunt individual rice grains in the fields or leave the children of those whom I saw all those years ago going hungry and malnourished. We have to be smarter and cleverer than that. We have to think about a future world in which we can, ultimately, see some different regime and some kind of future for North Korea. Starving people is no way to do that.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about Magnitsky-style sanctions, and the noble Lord, Lord Swire, talked about the enablers in our society. I have no doubt that there is North Korean money here in London, going through banks, law firms and real estate agents. We have to do a lot more about the huge corruption problem that we have in the UK. That is something that we can do directly, and we also need to make sure that we apply sanctions in smart ways that address that angle.
Finally, I spoke a little about weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. North Korea withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuclear weapon on 9 October 2006. The International Atomic Energy Agency has not had access to North Korea’s nuclear facility since 2009, and in 2017 Pyongyang conducted its first test of a thermonuclear device. I am not going to go through this in great detail—it is perhaps a debate for another day—but I note that the majority of the world’s countries back the global treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons: 93 countries are now signatories to that treaty, 69 countries are parties and 123 countries have expressed their support. We must aspire to a world without regimes like that of the DPRK, but if things go that badly wrong, a world without nuclear weapons will be a much safer world for all of us. The existence of nuclear weapons is a threat to all of us and that will be the situation as long as they exist.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for enabling us to have this debate and to discuss the current threats to peace, security and human rights posed by North Korea. I have been in North Korea three times, as my noble friend Lord Alton mentioned. I will never forget one occasion when I went for a walk in Pyongyang and I heard the footsteps of my minder following me. After about 10 minutes, the footsteps accelerated. He caught up with me and he said, out of breath, “I can’t keep up with you. You are going to have to walk alone”, which was wonderful. I walked through Pyongyang without a minder, and it was poignant how many people wanted to come up to speak to me and how they shared with great openness their deep concerns. It was a very special occasion.
I am delighted that there are today representatives of the diplomatic corps of the Republic of Korea here and an escapee from North Korea, who himself suffered great torture. We know that people who have escaped from North Korea have great courage; it is a great privilege that you are here and we hope that you will find this debate encouraging.
Today’s discussion is very timely. In March 2024, it will be a decade since the United Nations Commission of Inquiry concluded its mandate to ensure the full accountability of violations of human rights in North Korea. As some of us will recall, that inquiry visited London for an evidence-gathering session, where exiled North Koreans, including many who had found refuge on these shores, shared their harrowing experiences. In its conclusion, the inquiry found that
“systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been … committed”
in North Korea, which
“In many instances … entailed crimes against humanity”.
These issues have been raised by other noble Lords, but I repeat them because they need to go on the record and be emphasised. The inquiry concluded by stating that the human rights situation in North Korea was without
“any parallel in the contemporary world”.
As we prepare to mark the 10-year anniversary of the inquiry’s report, we must be realistic and sober in our reflections. It is no great secret that impunity prevails in North Korea today and there is still no serious prospect of implementing many of the inquiry’s core recommendations to ensure that those most responsible for crimes against humanity are held accountable. Justice may be a long game, but I think we would all have hoped for greater movement in the past decade.
The UN inquiry recommended that the Security Council refer the situation in North Korea to the International Criminal Court. It recommended that a United Nations international tribunal be created, and that the Security Council impose targeted sanctions against alleged perpetrators of crimes. These recommendations have never been implemented. Given the role of China and Russia in the Security Council, we may never see them implemented. Therefore, new approaches to ensuring accountability, including the United Kingdom’s global human rights sanctions regime, must surely now be considered. I hope the Minister will comment on what steps are being taken to ensure that accountability can become a reality. The current situation of prevailing impunity in North Korea poses an acute challenge to the legacy of the inquiry, to the UK’s foreign policy and to international justice, but ultimately to North Korea’s victims, some of whom have found refuge here in the United Kingdom.
Before I move to speak further about some of the egregious violations in North Korea and their impact on communities, I will clarify why the issue of human rights matters in the context of this debate and global peace and security. Traditionally, there has been a separation in policy for North Korea, meaning that human rights issues and what are commonly termed peace and security issues, which refer to the country’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, are addressed separately. As my noble friend Lord Alton has argued many times, there can be no tangible political progress on human rights or peace and security in North Korea unless both issues are approached collectively. I am heartened to see this is now reflected at the Security Council, where the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and other like-minded states have begun to break down these barriers and approach human rights and peace and security for North Korea as a single issue. The previous United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in North Korea highlighted the imperative for the international community to pursue leverage on human rights in a consistent, principled and effective manner. This included mainstreaming human rights into peace and security diplomacy. It is vital that this approach prevails.
I do not wish to dwell on this issue of policy, but I will clarify how the two issues are closely linked. We know from the testimonies of former officials that North Korea operates a slush fund, where state resources can be diverted to fund its weapons programmes. In turn, it is these weapons that threaten regional and international peace and security. According to the United States State Department, North Korea spends 35% of its gross national income on its military—a total of $3.6 billion. Some $620 million of this military budget is spent on nuclear weapons. Where does North Korea, a country isolated from the international economy, find such extraordinary amounts of money to bankroll its weapons of mass destruction programmes?
We know North Korea raises funds through theft and extortion. In 2020, the United States Department of Justice charged three North Korean individuals for stealing over $1.3 billion in cash and cryptocurrency from banks and business around the world. What is less well known is that North Korea diverts resources to its weapons programmes that should be spent on feeding and sustaining its population. North Korea is, quite literally, taking from the poor to feed its insatiable desire to build weapons that are capable of killing millions. According to the World Food Programme, over 40% of the North Korean population are undernourished. It would cost $79 million, which is just 2% of North Korea’s estimated military budget, for North Korea to meet the financial requirements of its food security, agricultural and nutrition sectors, and to eliminate chronic food insecurity for its population, yet it chooses not to do so. We can see that North Korea is sacrificing the basic and fundamental human rights of its population to fund its military machine. In this respect, human rights violations have become a generator of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction.
North Korea’s vast penal system is perhaps the clearest example of how the state diverts resources away from the most vulnerable to fund its weapons programmes. Created under the Soviet Civil Administration in November 1945, the North Korean penal system is comparable to the infamous Soviet gulags. The purpose of the North Korean penal system is to isolate persons from society whose behaviour conflicts with upholding the authority of the supreme leader. Detainees are re-educated through forced labour, ideological instruction and punitive brutality for the purpose of compelling unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the supreme leader, both while the individuals are in detention and after they are released. Many detainees in the penal system have no formal convictions, have experienced no due process and have committed no crimes. Simply reading the Bible or watching a foreign film may lead to a lengthy prison sentence.
We cannot know the true scale of the prison population in North Korea, but if we take the US State Department’s lowest figures of 80,000 detainees in the political prison system we can start to understand its scale and question how North Korea can afford such a vast system. Australia and North Korea have roughly the same-sized populations. We know that Australia spends 250 US dollars per day on each of its prisoners to meet their basic human rights, such as food and clean conditions of detention. If we imagine that this basic cost of $250 per day per prisoner was being spent by North Korea on 80,000 prisoners, it would spend over $7 billion a year on prisoners alone, which is twice its military budget. Based on reporting from the non-governmental organisation Korea Future and its North Korean prison database, we can confidently assume that it is spending nowhere near that figure.
In its report from March this year, Korea Future detailed the case of a North Korean man in his 40s who was arrested for helping people escape the country. Throughout his sentence of seven years and nine months in a re-education camp, he was denied food as a form of coercion and punishment. Pressed into forced labour, he was typically provided with a meal consisting of roughly 4.3 ounces, or 120 grams, of corn each day. When he did not meet his forced labour quota, his food was reduced to just 80 grams, which contained inedible elements such as corn husks, small fragments of stone and wooden twigs. To survive, the man was forced to catch and eat insects such as cockroaches, and small rodents. That is just one of thousands of cases documented by Korea Future. We heard about those situations when we were in North Korea.
If North Korea is not spending its resources to ensure the basic and fundamental rights of its most vulnerable, where are those billions of dollars being spent? To quote our ambassador, James Kariuki, at the UN Security Council in August this year:
“The North Korean authorities divert resources from peoples' basic economic needs toward their illegal nuclear and ballistic weapons programmes ... We urge North Korea to prioritise the well-being of its citizens over the development of its illegal weapons programmes".
This example demonstrates why my noble friend Lord Alton and many others have argued that we cannot separate our policies targeting human rights and peace and security in North Korea. The two issues are mutually interdependent.
I end by discussing another human rights issue that poses a very real and present threat in North Korea—the persecution of religious communities. First, I commend the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea on its tireless work on this issue and many other human rights issues. It seems remarkable today but, at the creation of the North Korean state in the 1940s, religious communities, including Buddhism and Christianity, were part of the fabric of society. Many had played a role in the struggle for Korean independence from Japanese colonial rule during and following World War Two. The Protestant community in what is now North Korea was estimated to be 200,000-strong in 1945. Despite suffering waves of persecution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Korean Catholicism had an estimated community of 55,000 adherents. Yet under the Soviet Civil Administration and later the North Korean state, these religious communities were targeted by persecution, discriminatory legislation, arbitrary arrest, exile and murder.
Tens of thousands of Protestants were killed or fled to South Korea. Those who survived were forced underground in the late 1950s and early 1960s, leading to the creation of the present-day underground churches in North Korea. Catholics suffered an even worse fate. According to the former archbishop of Seoul and apostolic administrator of Pyongyang, by 2006 there were no known Catholic adherents remaining in North Korea and no remaining Vatican-recognised institutions of the Catholic Church. All that remained were “show churches” in Pyongyang, used to try to mislead foreign delegations. In reality, Catholics have effectively been eliminated from North Korea.
A report by the law firm Hogan Lovells, which was commissioned shortly after the 2014 UN commission of inquiry, found evidence to suggest that this persecution of religious communities in North Korea may even amount to what can be called genocide. More recent evidence lends weight to this legal opinion. In its 2021 report entitled Persecuting Faith, the non-governmental organisation Korea Future documented 167 cases of serious human rights violations perpetrated against Christians in North Korea between 1997 and 2018. Indefinite life sentences and death sentences were handed to Christians simply for being Christian. Victims were generally aged between 20 and 59, but it is shocking that even a child aged two was also a victim. Korea Future found that, in 11 cases, the victims were believed to still be held in detention in North Korea; their fates are unknown.
It would appear that there is sufficient credible evidence to show that human rights violations perpetrated by North Korean officials are neither arbitrary nor random, and are purposely directed at the destruction of Christian and other religious communities. These findings are supported by testimonies, internal government documents, and statements from former high-ranking North Korean officials who have defected.
This brings us back to the question of how we can ensure regional and global security from North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and how we can increase the security of the North Korean people. The first step in any response must include efforts to ensure accountability and deter future acts of violence and aggression. In doing so, we should deploy all available options in our foreign policy toolbox, including bilateral diplomacy, consensus-building at the Security Council in New York and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the United Kingdom’s global human rights sanctions regime.
It is the prospect of using targeted human rights sanctions that I will end on. The global human rights sanctions regime was established in 2020. The regime allows the UK Government to impose sanctions in response to certain serious human rights violations around the world. The regime is intended to target not individual countries, but individuals or organisations involved in serious human rights violations. It is with that message to my noble friend the Minister that I conclude.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we all owe a great debt of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for introducing this debate this afternoon, for having the prescience to bring it, and for bringing his immense expertise to the Chamber. Right at the outset, he raised an issue that all of us present, and those many Members who are not in their places, should think about. In the 21st century, there seems to be an issue of politics and international relations speeding up, and of Governments, politicians and the media being perhaps unable to deal with more than one crisis at a time.
It is only two and a half years ago that the United States, and with it its NATO allies, pulled out of Afghanistan. That was not an unexpected incident; your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee had written a report about the UK’s role in Afghanistan and published it in January of that year. The Government responded to that report, yet in August 2021 it seemed that the Government had been somewhat blindsided by Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. That withdrawal, and the West’s inability to remain and support the Afghans once the US left, sent messages to Russia and China. Why is that important? It is because, in many ways, nobody was looking at Afghanistan at that time. Nobody was saying, “What if there is a major change?”, yet for two and a half years, thousands of people in Afghanistan have been fleeing for their lives. Decisions made on issues that have not been adequately thought about can have major consequences.
However, we do not really talk very much about Afghanistan at the moment. Ukraine, the next big international crisis, pushed Afghanistan off the front pages and seemed to push it out of the mindset of this Chamber and the other place. Then we get Israel and Gaza.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, put it, there is a real issue of bandwidth. I think of it perhaps as the CNN factor but, in a conversation earlier, it was pointed out that maybe it is the TikTok generation. Well, I suspect the Minister replying to the debate this afternoon is not of the TikTok generation. I may be wrong; he may be going to say that I have got it entirely wrong and he spends much of his time on TikTok and Instagram—but I suspect not. I suspect that, like many of us, he is of a generation that is used to events happening in a somewhat slower way, taking time to evolve and not being followed by the media 24/7. In the 30 years since Bosnia and the rise of CNN, we are expected to respond to crises immediately but to switch from one to the next to the next.
One question I will ask the noble Lord is not directly about North Korea—I will come on to that in a moment. It is: to what extent are His Majesty’s Government able to take the time to think about wider threats beyond the immediate? The then Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, was blindsided by Afghanistan—being on holiday where, apparently, he could not swim because the sea was closed. That issue had been foreseen, even if it suited Ministers later to suggest that it had not.
North Korea is precisely the sort of issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Swire, pointed out, that this House and the elected Chamber spend very little time thinking about; how very different for Japan and South Korea, and I welcome their diplomats present today. There is very much a question of what His Majesty’s Government are able to do beyond integrated reviews to think about North Korea and the sorts of unintentional consequences of the fact that is has developed nuclear weapons. So my question to the Minister is on wider strategic matters, because I want to focus my remarks on the wider international.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Swire, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Alton for repeatedly bringing questions about North Korea to our attention. Frankly, if they did not, who would? Obviously, we now have the added benefit of having the noble Lord, Lord Swire, here to do that, but we need to be reminded in this country about North Korea and the questions that we need to think about as part of the international community.
Today’s debate is about the current threat from North Korea. As defence spokesperson for these Benches, my immediate thought was of the international consequences and threats that we have rightly heard about from speakers across the Chamber and the domestic threats and human rights violations perpetrated every day in North Korea. These matter and we should be thinking about them, and I add the support of these Benches for the comments about concerns about genocide and crimes against humanity. As so often, I ask the Minister what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of concerns about crimes against humanity and genocide being perpetrated in North Korea and of whether now is the time to be thinking about naming genocide.
In order to widen the debate, I want to think about the wider global consequences, which were well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and touched on in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Aside from the domestic threats to the individual—to the very people whom the North Korean Government should be protecting, their own citizens—North Korea’s obscene defence expenditure of 35% or 40% of its GDP ignores its citizens. It is not about protecting them; it is about the aggrandisement of the state.
The potential and actual threats from North Korea are linked to the nuclear threat, to cyber and to cryptocurrency, as the noble Lord, Lord Swire, pointed out, and there are wider questions about the potential development of chemical weapons and the use of hybrid warfare. From the perspective of Westminster, most of those threats might seem very far away, but they are threats to our allies such as South Korea, from which we recently had a state visit at which issues of defence were discussed. If the United Kingdom is to be a strong ally and partner of South Korea, and similarly of Japan, we need to think about how to support those countries in their defence, and with our defence relationships. So precisely what discussions are His Majesty’s Government having with those of North Korea’s neighbours that perceive themselves to be most under threat from North Korea in the international space?
The nuclear threat does not affect just neighbouring countries. How effective that threat is—how effective North Korea’s nuclear capability is in 2023—remains somewhat unclear, but we are hearing a lot about the six nuclear tests and the attempts to have intercontinental ballistic missiles and the ability to target the United States, our NATO ally. Have the Government made assessments of the current nuclear capabilities of North Korea and what the potential threats actually are?
We probably differ across the Chamber in our views about the implications of North Korea having nuclear weapons for our own domestic nuclear stance. If we had a world without nuclear weapons, we would all be much safer—the dangers of miscalculation would go away because the threat would have gone—but unilateral disarmament would not get us to that place. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, pointed out in his introductory remarks, North Korea rightly looks at countries that gave up their nuclear weapons, such as Ukraine, and says, “We want a nuclear weapon”.
So the question of who has nuclear weapons and what we do with them remains pertinent. Have the Government thought about talking to the six about further discussions on the nuclear capabilities of North Korea? Is the United Kingdom in any discussions about being part of those negotiations? In the negotiations with Iran that worked effectively until the Trump regime was in government, the E3+3 had an important role. So the UK does have a role to play, but is it playing it? Do the Government see a role for us, particularly if we were able to reopen our embassy in Pyongyang?
There are many questions that reach into the wider international which the Minister might like to tackle in his 20 minutes when he is responding to these relatively few speeches. Often, we have a debate on a foreign or defence issue on a Thursday afternoon and relatively few people speak. It is wonderful to see that on this occasion—I am deliberately saying this so that it is on the record in Hansard—the Chamber is not empty apart from the speakers; we have Peers listening intently on this important issue, because it matters. The security of North Korea’s neighbours is not just a regional issue; there are global challenges here that affect the United Kingdom and our NATO partners.
I want to wind up my speech with a final set of questions about China, which could potentially play an important role. China has a mutual defence agreement with North Korea. It is also a country that has traditionally not been in favour of intervention in other countries; for example, it did not actively support Russia’s intervention in Ukraine despite it having made a bilateral agreement with Russia almost immediately before the invasion of eastern Ukraine. So, we assume that China would not support North Korea being an aggressor, but is it playing any role as a mediator? Can we have frank conversations with China about this?
Indeed, has there been a change in the FCDO’s position in the past two weeks—or is it three?—since the former Prime Minister was ennobled in order to become our Foreign Secretary? It is clear that, during the coalition Government, the UK’s relationship with China was much closer; although that was arguably too close a relationship, it is still important to remember that our relationship with China needs to include elements of co-operation; it is not just about challenge and competition. Do His Majesty’s Government see a way to talk to China about being a mediator because, at the moment, it seems unlikely that we will have any opportunities to persuade Russia to weaken its relations with North Korea, when Russia needs all the friends it can get? Assuming that China is the main potential mediator, are we having discussions?
In line with many noble Lords, I support from these Benches the ideas that we need to ensure that we have effective sanctions; and that the sanctions against North Korea should be targeted at individuals so that, as far as possible, they minimise the impact on citizens. I spoke on this issue on 5 September 2017—I went back and checked. On that occasion, Vladimir Putin had just said:
“The North Koreans will eat grass”.
That was the impact of the sanctions. We need to make sure that the impact of sanctions is on individuals, and secondary sanctions are vital so that nobody in North Korea who should be taking responsibility is able to escape that responsibility.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for initiating this debate. His focus on analysing what has changed is absolutely correct. There have been fundamental changes that have had a geopolitical influence; obviously, we need to take them into account. I also think it is relevant that this debate is taking place just a week after marking Human Rights Day and the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course, the key element of that is “universal”; it applies to us all without exception. When it was signed at the United Nations, it was clear that all countries signed up to that.
The changes raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, which I want to address, are linked to the conflict that we now face in Europe and other issues. The response of Russia is clearly influencing a changing relationship. The axis that the noble Lord referred to is a growing one; obviously, we must address it. The integrated review refresh—I have no doubt that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will address it—focused on the instability that the DPRK can create in our relationships. It is that instability that we need to focus on.
However, there is one thing that has not changed in North Korea, and that is the horrendous human rights abuses that have taken place. It has been a constant throughout its history. It has gone from starving the whole population to internment camps, concentration camps and annihilation. There is a detailed history. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about this and I pay tribute to him. Like the Minister—I have to admire his sustainability in post—I participated in the 2017 debate, so we have been a constant factor in this. We should not shy away from focusing on those human rights abuses and building alliances to address them in detail.
Since its first nuclear test in 2006, the global community has been largely united in opposition to the DPRK possessing nuclear weapons. It is just as important now that the world speaks as one to condemn this provocation. I certainly welcome the joint statement other noble Lords have referred to, which was initiated by the US and signed by the UK and a large number of other countries. It urges North Korea to abandon its unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic weapons programme. Just as important is that the statement also urged North Korea to accept the repeated invitations—the noble Lord, Lord Swire, was absolutely right to focus on this—for dialogue, to abandon the weapons and instead dedicate its resources to improving the lives of the people of North Korea.
I have mentioned the integrated review. Our ambassador to the UN, Barbara Woodward, who has been a great ambassador—the Minister and I have been talking about her amazing contribution in raising these issues—said at the November UN Security Council that the missile tests are
“clear threats to global peace and security which is the core responsibility of this Council and they violate multiple Security Council resolutions”.
She also asked and called for—as did the noble Lord, Lord Swire—North Korea to
“reopen its borders and re-engage with UN agencies”
including the Security Council, to
“reiterate the depth of our resolve to combating proliferation”,
and in terms of responding to the needs of the people of North Korea. We should not forget that either. It is fundamental.
The United States, as the Security Council penholder, continues to provide global leadership for finding a diplomatic solution. But that is obviously now being impacted by the changing relationship we have been talking about in this debate, particularly with Russia. It is also, as we have heard, undermining the global non-proliferation regime. It appears that North Korea may be providing equipment to attack Ukrainian cities and further the illegal war initiated by Putin. That information comes from US intelligence agencies, as noble Lords have said. The FCDO spokesperson at the time strongly condemned Russia’s decision to source arms from North Korea and urged the North Koreans to cease their supply. The FCDO also raised the issue of
“The transfer of money, military equipment or technology bolstering North Korea’s own illegal weapons programmes”.
There is a two-way traffic here that we need to appreciate and understand. That is why we need an incredibly robust set of sanctions.
Reference has been made to the diplomats here today, and the joint accord that was signed during the President of the Republic of Korea’s state visit is incredibly welcome. It included a defence agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, demanded, a suite of sanctions is not the only requirement necessary; the ability to enforce them strongly is very important. That is why, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, the accord has closer relationships between the Royal Navy and the Republic of Korea’s navy, ensuring that the two countries are, for the first time, working together and conducting joint sea patrols to prevent goods and materials being smuggled into North Korea. That co-operation is important not only for that specific task but generally to increase security for the whole Indo-Pacific.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned that the UN panel of experts, assisting the DPRK sanctions committee, warned that cyberattacks from North Korea are being used to steal cryptocurrency and generate revenue for its weapons programme. The Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has highlighted the danger posed by North Korea’s actions. In a recent Sun newspaper article, he said he had seen briefings that
“make clear the risks of cyber attacks and industrial espionage”
from North Korea. Can the Minister reassure the House that the specific threat from North Korea is being addressed by the FCDO in its cross-Whitehall security working to protect not only government agencies but the private sector? The espionage being conducted is not limited to state actors or state departments.
All this shows that the leadership of the DPRK is committed more to provocation than to improving the lives of the North Korean people. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, mentioned that food availability remains a major problem. The World Bank estimates that 42% of the country is undernourished, and I think that is an underestimate, because the DPRK is closed off from the outside world more than ever before. It is impossible to understand the full scale of its people’s suffering.
Human rights are being constantly undermined by the continuation of that horrendous regime. Intense surveillance, enforced disappearance, torture, as I said, and gender-based violence are all prevalent. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, recently warned that policies introduced to contain Covid are still being used to repress the population, despite the pandemic waning. Human Rights Watch has warned, and I hope the Minister responds to this important point, of the fate of those fleeing North Korea who end up in the wrong neighbouring country—not just China, as sadly there is speculation about Vietnam sending people back as well. It is hopefully a concentration camp but, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, we know that far worse is going on. We have to ensure that we work with our counterparts and that the FCDO is committed to making sure that the movement of people from China to North Korea is stopped. We must try to ensure that respect.
Ultimately, we have to respond strongly if North Korea chooses provocation while allowing its own people to suffer. I agree with all noble Lords that we should extend the use of Magnitsky-style sanctions targeting individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Swire, said, it is also about how we can target individuals who facilitate—not simply individuals within the regime. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to all the requests made in this debate.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Swire for tabling this debate. His introduction again reflected his deep insight and expertise in this area, not just as a previous Minister of State at the Foreign Office but through his continuing engagement with important issues on the global stage. He highlighted directly North Korea’s destabilising behaviours, which have endangered international peace and security for some time and continue to do so.
The issue of bandwidth was raised by my noble friend, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I was reflecting on my own day. I started with a Munich group meeting with the ambassadors of Egypt, Jordan, the EU, Germany and France. This lunchtime I hosted the E10 ambassadors, including Japan and the Republic of Korea. This exact subject was part and parcel of our discussion. Interjected among those meetings were others on Afghanistan—including about women and girls and our humanitarian support—Yemen and Syria, and a meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister, followed by a meeting with the Bahraini Foreign Minister, together with my noble friend Lord Cameron. Perhaps this shows that, within the Foreign Office, we are well positioned in terms of ministerial bandwidth. I understand what the noble Baroness and my noble friend said. We need these debates, whether on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or, for that matter, Friday. I assure noble Lords that the Government will always respond actively and in detail, as I hope to do today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also talked about generation TikTok. I may not be on TikTok—when I was growing up, “tick tock” was a clock—but, at the same time, having children of that generation, I am well versed in this. Among the many things that I have to navigate are a message I got just now that there is a dispute between a nine year-old and an 11 year-old that I have to interlock and perhaps conclude when I get home, whenever that may be. Some would argue that this is the most difficult of disputes to resolve. I assure noble Lords that we are very focused on the serious matters in front of us.
Following the 1953 armistice, the tragic division of the Korean peninsula yielded two different models. As we have heard from several noble Lords, the past three decades have seen North Korea choose to develop illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programmes at the expense of its people’s livelihoods, threatening its neighbours and the international community. This is a breach of international norms, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said. We strongly condemn it. We encourage North Korea to return to dialogue. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Swire that the door is always open. Negotiation and diplomacy channels should always remain open. We will co-operate, together with the international community, as expressed in the UN Security Council resolutions. I acknowledge and, of course, will pass on the warm words from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to our excellent Ambassador Barbara Woodward, whom we met earlier this week. She was in London after a visit to the Rafah crossing.
This dialogue and an end to weapons of mass destruction programmes are essential. We need to agree a path to the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, a sustainable economy and an equitable society for all North Koreans first and foremost. It is for their sakes.
In the southern half of the peninsula, the Republic of Korea took a very different route following the armistice. As a result, South Korea is now one of the world’s largest economies, the world’s second-largest semiconductor manufacturer and a key global trade partner, home to over 25,000 Britons. It also has astonishing soft power, something we promote. I am sure noble Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said to me, are familiar with the works of BTS and Blackpink—I have a teenage daughter, so I assure noble Lords that I am. I pay tribute to the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of the Korean people. The noble Baroness asked, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, answered on my behalf, about the integrated review. We recently celebrated the Downing Street Accord as part of a very historic first state visit by the President of the Republic of Korea. I was part of that engagement and it was a real celebration of the strengthened bilateral friendship between our two countries. This demonstrates where South Korea is.
These aspirations should not be limited to just one half of Korea. A bright future still lies ahead for North Korea if its Government abandon their programmes, particularly those on WMD. So far this year, North Korea has launched 29 ballistic missiles, including four ICBMs and a military reconnaissance satellite, in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions. The international community is clear that this activity is absolutely unacceptable. Such provocations raise tensions in the region and risk spiralling into a regional arms race. North Korea has also fully restored its nuclear underground test site and can conduct a seventh test, should it choose to do so. My noble friend Lord Swire will recall that he was Minister for Asia when North Korea undertook its fourth nuclear test. We welcomed the subsequent decision to halt nuclear tests and engage in negotiations, including, importantly, with the United States.
Earlier this week, I met Rob Floyd of the CTBTO, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, to discuss our continuing concerns on this agenda, including over North Korea. We regret that the negotiations with the US did not succeed. We regularly encourage North Korea to respond positively to the offer of talks without preconditions that was offered by the United States and which we support, to reduce those regional tensions, but it saddens me that there is no international consensus on how to manage its provocations. For example, China and Russia consistently fail to condemn ballistic missile launches that directly violate Security Council resolutions they had supported. Such divisions within the Security Council damage its credibility and can only embolden the North Korean regime.
Another nuclear test would, in our view, pose a serious challenge to the international community as a whole. Even North Korea’s close neighbours, such as China and, in the past, Russia, have strongly opposed such nuclear tests. The UN Security Council must act as one to condemn such action—such illegal development—and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others that we will continue to urge China, as well as Russia, for that matter, to state unequivocally that they oppose Northern Korean nuclear tests.
The UK is particularly concerned about the burgeoning relationship between North Korea and Russia. There was, as noble Lords may have seen, a meeting between Kim Jong-un and Mr Putin in September, and there is emerging evidence now of North Korean arms sales for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. It is not clear what Russia intends to provide in return, but it is likely to be military and space technology. North Korea’s track record of proliferation means that this deal could have dangerous consequences for the region and global security.
To curtail these activities, the UK works very closely with international partners. Sanctions came up. I am proud of our record of having introduced global human rights sanctions: it is something I have campaigned for since I first entered this House back in 2011, and I was delighted it got the cross-party support in both Chambers that it absolutely deserved. I assure noble Lords that we are very much seized, not just with what we do in North Korea but across the piece, of how we sanction both individuals and organisations. I pay tribute, again—it should be a regular feature of any speech on human rights—to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who we all acknowledge as a great champion of human rights. He continues to raise the very issue of the DPRK consistently, and I join the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others in paying tribute to the APPG’s work in this area as well.
We must work with our partners—I know the noble Lord, Lord Collins, agrees with me—because it is a vital tool, when it comes to sanctions, to work with others to signal our opposition, and in this case, our opposition to ballistic missile launches.
However, the UK recognises that sanctions are most effective when we can agree them through the UN. Repeated obstruction by Russia and China in the UNSC has made new sanctions impossible and prevented the council implementing Security Council resolutions on the DPRK—a point raised my noble friend Lord Swire—which, I stress again, have been agreed by all council members. These things are extremely important. As such, the UK increasingly opts for a more calibrated sanctions approach that builds international consensus, working with our key partners, and counters the emerging domains of cyberspace as well as nuclear proliferation.
My noble friend Lord Sarfraz and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the patrolling of sanctions. I am delighted my noble friend was able to visit a UK vessel on station, one of the two offshore patrol vessels, HMS “Tamar” and HMS “Spey”, which are in the Indo-Pacific on an ongoing basis. Both ships support sanctions enforcement activity alongside G7 partners and conduct maritime surveillance. I assure my noble friend that we will continue undertaking joint enforcement operations with South Korea, as announced during the state visit last month. That enforcement action will be underpinned by a new defence and cyber partnership, which will also include sharing information more efficiently to tackle maritime threats in the Indo-Pacific, and the signing of a strategic cyber partnership committing our nations to working together to tackle cyber threats.
As many noble Lords pointed out, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we must reduce North Korea’s ability to fund its WMD programmes. As I stand here today recounting the scope and scale of North Korea’s activities, all noble Lords may have rightly asked “How can a regime, which struggles to feed its people, afford this?” The answer, sadly, is simple : theft. The noble Lord, Lord Collins alluded to this. North Korea funds approximately 40% of its illegal weapons programme via illicit cyber activity. My noble friend Lord Swire also brought our attention to this subject. A recent UN panel of experts report estimates that illegal cyber operations have raised up to $2 billion until now. North Korea steals intellectual property, generates illegal revenue and operates with relative impunity in the cybersphere. That is why the United Kingdom is committed, with our partners, to restricting the ability of its cyber actors to operate with impunity.
As a thought leader in the field, we are raising international awareness of cyber threats from North Korea, and I assure my noble friend, who tabled this debate, that we are building a coalition of partners in this respect. The recent signing of the strategic cyber co-operation partnership with South Korea is an example of this, and it signals our commitment to upholding the norms of responsible state behaviour, cutting illegal revenue streams and reducing the vulnerability of the UK and its allies.
We must never forget that it is ultimately the North Korean people who bear the cost of these actions and their Government’s illicit programmes. Even before the borders closed in response to the Covid pandemic in 2020, the UN World Food Programme estimated that 40% of North Koreans were food insecure. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, drew our attention to this very issue. The self-imposed lockdown can only result in exacerbating the situation. We call on North Korea again to re-open the border. Only then can the UN agencies assess how much support the international community should provide.
As we have heard repeatedly from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox-, and indeed all noble Lords alluded to this, North Korea’s citizens suffer appalling human rights violations, including imprisonment, forced labour—which are the positives, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, noted—and executions. The lucky ones get imprisoned.
The Foreign Office’s human rights report for 2023, which I lead on, reiterates that the Government severely restricts freedom of speech, religion, belief and assembly, and I will come on to those points in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly asked about the Security Council. We held an open meeting on the human rights situation in the DPRK on 17 August—the first time this issue has been brought to the council since 2017. That is part of the drive, and again I thank noble Lords for raising these issues. The UK was recently pleased to co-sponsor the resolution on DPRK human rights, adopted by consensus at the UN Human Rights Council on 4 April. At that time, I made clear in my contribution that we call on the DPRK to engage constructively with the UN special rapporteur, Elizabeth Salmón, to bring about permanent change and improvement for the people of North Korea. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to engage in this respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Swire mentioned the ICC. I accept that the DPRK is not a party to the Rome statute, and I would hazard a guess that it is unlikely under the current regime to accept its jurisdiction. However, we are clear that there must be no impunity, as several noble Lords have said, for the most serious crimes. The UK has consistently worked, and will continue to work, to secure strong resolutions on human rights in the DPRK at both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. We will continue to raise these issues and will seek out appropriate action to ensure accountability, including strong consideration of referral to the International Criminal Court.
It is very clear that North Korea’s citizens suffer appalling human rights violations. We will continue to call out the DPRK on its human rights record and are urging others in conjunction to do the same. In response to North Korea’s human rights record, we have consistently called out the violations of UN Security Council resolutions and will continue to do so.
I assure noble Lords that I am very much focused on the issue of those who were returned from China. The information is sketchy, even recently. I was reading the Open Doors report and was particularly taken by Timothy Cho, who himself escaped this abhorrent imprisonment. We are grateful that he was able to come and work here directly. I pay tribute to the work of Open Doors across a range of issues of freedom of religion.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about this quite specifically, as did my noble friend Lord Swire and others, that we are raising bilaterally the issue of the 600 or more escapees, with the country that has influence—China. As to traction, we shall wait and see, but the situation is extremely bleak. We will continue to highlight the practice of the forced repatriation of refugees in the international fora. As noble Lords said, the refugee convention of 1951 must be respected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talked about Christian persecution. There are many places where Christians suffer but, according to Open Doors, North Korea is the place where Christians suffer most. We must continue the transparency of the human rights and sanctions procedures. I note what the noble Lord says, but we do work with human rights bodies in this respect. I take on board his suggestion to see how we can make that process more transparent, though he will understand the sensitivities in our sanctioning of individuals and organisations.
My noble friend Lord Swire asked about the six-party talks on the DPRK, formed with China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the US. It is a useful format, which we very much support. We stand ready, if they were to be taken forward again, to play an active part in supporting them. We call on all countries to come together to ensure that the DPRK avoids provocative behaviours and takes steps to generate confidence, and to build a framework for negotiations that advances our shared wish for a peaceful and stable Korean peninsula.
To this end, we hope to re-open our embassy in North Korea, which has been temporarily closed since May 2020. We have asked repeatedly North Korea to facilitate the return of all foreign diplomats, but equally importantly, UN agencies and humanitarian organisations, as soon as possible. We have told its embassy that lifting restrictions on Chinese and Russian diplomats entering the DPRK while excluding diplomats from other countries is directly discriminating against others. Its argument that neighbouring countries have precedence in returning to normal proceedings has no validity under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, and we will continue to raise this case.
We will also continue to look for ways to constrain the activity that breaches UN Security Council resolutions, while, importantly, developing and strengthening channels of communication, as all noble Lords have said. As a final word, I say that that door remains open. It promotes the shared goal of all noble Lords in the Chamber today, who have made such detailed, insightful and expert contributions, of a peaceful and stable Korean peninsula and a better life for all the people of Korea, north and south.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, what we may have lacked in quantity, Hansard will record that we have more than made up for in quality. While it would be invidious of me to single out any one speaker, I am most grateful to all those who spoke and who listened. I am also extremely grateful to the usual channels for allowing me to secure this long-overdue debate.
All of us here will commit to keeping alert to the threat posed by North Korea and keeping up the pressure. In that, I know that we have an indefatigable champion in the shape of our Minister, whose record of his day sent a shiver down my spine. One can only suppose that he exists, in expanding his own bandwidth as he takes on all these difficult issues around the world, by surviving on a diet of canapés and Foreign Office Ferrero Rocher. We know that he is fighting for us in these matters.
Those of us who have stood on the DMZ, in the safety of the thriving democratic Republic of South Korea, have looked across the abyss into the almost Kafkaesque regime in the north. As we go home to our families for the Christmas period and go Christmas shopping—with the warmth of our homes and our families and with food on the table—we should pause to think of those people who are subjected to some of the worst human rights abuses anywhere in the world by a regime with a warped ideology whose sole interest is in maintaining its own stranglehold on that country. We owe them more than sympathy and warm words; we owe them our continuing determination to do something about it.