House of Commons
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023.
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I had the great pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s jobcentre in April. Since then, it has been closed temporarily, I believe, and moved to Gloucester. I am sure there is no connection. [Interruption.] I am really sure, I can reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Of course, it does a fantastic job in matching jobs through work coaches, jobs fairs, recruitment days and an extensive skills offering.
Siobhan Baillie
Work experience is often really hard to nail down—places go to those with friends and family in the sector, and employers are really busy. That is particularly so for small skilled manufacturing businesses in Stroud, so I am working with employability experts Finito to launch a campaign for low-fuss shadowing work experience across the board. We want to allow everybody, young and old, to find out more about weird and wonderful jobs, and to allow employers to assess candidates. Is that something my right hon. Friend is interested in, and will he meet me to discuss it?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and I would be delighted for either me or the relevant Minister to meet her. I know the terrific work she has done, particularly with organisations such as Finito, in getting young people ready for work. Indeed, I believe she set up the all-party parliamentary group on the future of employability. I am very happy to have a meeting.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Access to Work remains in high demand. We are increasing the number of staff processing Access to Work claims, and prioritising renewal applications for those with a job start within four weeks. We are improving the service through increased digitisation to improve the time from application through to decision.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister for her answer. Back in September, I asked the then Minister about the impact of long waiting times for Access to Work assessments on the neurodiverse, and I would like to press further on the impact of long waits for assessments in the NHS. What analysis has been done, and does the Minister appreciate the cost to the economy of not making the right adjustments to unlock such unused potential?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I, too, pressed the previous Minister on this matter, and I shall be pressing myself going forward. In fact, we met and fed in work involving Thriiver in my constituency, and we have been working with stakeholders, partners and employer organisations to make sure this link is joined up. We are determined that Access to Work will continue to be fit for purpose, and that we will deliver a modern and efficient digital service. Our new online portal is part of that. I think it is key to hear the experiences and to link up with other Departments.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new expanded role in the Department for Work and Pensions. The last time I raised Access to Work with her, it was about a particular blockage in my constituency, and I thank her for resolving that. She will know as well as I do that one of the biggest challenges for young disabled people is the transition into work. What reassurance can she give me that she is prioritising the applications of young people, so that when they move into their first job, that is not impeded by too slow a reaction from Access to Work?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I hope I am the Minister for getting things done in this brief, as I have been in all my other briefs in my almost five years at the DWP. I will be leaning very much into those details. I will be very clear with the House that the focus on youth transitions is really important for the sector and for the individual people we are talking about. I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will be looking into that in the new year.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to welcome the new Minister to her post. After a week of no news, I was starting to worry that the Prime Minister was not going to appoint anyone. I think she is aware of the huge Access to Work backlog her predecessor failed to tackle. Over the last year, it has reduced by only 942, with a staggering 24,339 still waiting, so hardly a dent has been made. What will she do to speed this up and ensure that thousands of disabled people are not left waiting months to start work?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome to this post, and I hope that I have already spelled out my commitment to delivering in this brief. I think that prioritising the process of Access to Work claims, renewals and job starts within four weeks is key, as is making sure that those with mental health support needs get additional support and that those who are deaf or hard of hearing also get that focus and that reach. I assure the hon. Lady that we have increased the number of staff in this space. On my handover from the previous Minister, I would take issue with the hon. Lady about the focus he had on reforming Access to Work and making sure it was fit for purpose, but I am happy to engage with her further.
Vicky Foxcroft
All we see from this Government are delays: delays processing Access to Work applications; delays publishing the disability action plan; and now delays in appointing the new Minister. When her new role was finally announced, it had been downgraded from Minister of State to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. What message does she think that sends to disabled people, and will she push to be made Minister of State like her predecessor?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for lobbying for my elevation and rank in this House. I am delighted to respond by making it clear to the lobby and to those we are talking about and looking after that that makes no material difference to their day-to-day life. There is no difference in my convening power or in the day-to-day work. Our next cross-Government ministerial disability champions meeting is in the new year. Let me be clear: this is not about rank. We are sent to this House to serve people and to engage and listen, and I will do that whatever the title or rank.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to be back, Mr Speaker. We are delivering a suite of measures as part of the back to work plan, supporting customers on their journey to employment. That is focused on developing skills and building confidence through interventions such as the restart scheme. We are working across Government to support those with health conditions get back to work, with programmes such as our WorkWell service.
Mr French
As a Conservative MP from a working-class background, I believe fundamentally in aspiration, hard work and fairness. Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefit system must be a safety net for those in genuine need, and that those people who can work should work?
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend because he speaks perfectly for those of us across the Conservative family. Work is positive, a force for good, and the system should be fair to the taxpayer and the claimant, with checks and balances. It is right that, on average, those in work are some £6,000 better off per year. Universal credit was introduced and further rolled out because it is a welfare system that makes work pay.
Greg Smith
Skills are clearly key to supporting the long-term unemployed to find work. Buckinghamshire Council is launching a series of skills bootcamps, targeted at the long-term unemployed. For example, one bootcamp will provide construction skills, including a construction skills certification scheme card, plus support to reach self-employment and wraparound support on how to set up a company. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Buckinghamshire Council on that initiative, and say what more she can do to ensure that those who need to upgrade their skills base are able to do so?
Jo Churchill
I am delighted to congratulate not only Buckinghamshire Council but my hon. Friend on the fantastic work he does in his constituency. Upskilling jobseekers, particularly in areas such as construction where we need more domestic workers, is vital. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to support individuals into employment through back to work programmes such as the restart scheme, which provides tailored training programmes and sector-based work academy programmes similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend. It offers training, work placements, and guaranteed job interviews, and I am committed to exploring what more can be done.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Earlier today I met Everyone’s Environment, and we talked about how we can ensure that people with disabilities benefit from some of the new green jobs and training that are coming on board. I know that the Minister’s predecessor as Minister for employment sat on the green jobs delivery group, so will she say what involvement she has had with that group to date?
Jo Churchill
I have already had a meeting of the inter-ministerial group on green jobs, and I have met many of those from across the disability sector. When I was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I sat on the inter-ministerial groups for green jobs and for disability access. It is vital that we use everybody’s talents, because work is a force for good. Someone’s disability should not stop their talent shining, and I will not let it do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that response. Many of the long-term unemployed have disabilities. Some of them cannot work, but some wish to work, and they need flexible hours because they do not know the times and days that they will not be able to work and will be off. What can be done to help those who have disabilities get into work, so long as their health can dictate when?
Jo Churchill
We have a whole suite in the back to work plan and the investment of £2.5 billion so that we can work with individual people to tailor plans for them. It is vital that if, for example, someone’s health condition restricts when they can travel on public transport, we work with them to ensure that they can travel after rush hour. They might need a taxi or some other tailored support. That can be done, and it will be done.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Government are committed to increasing employment. Payroll employment is at a near record high of 30.2 million, which is up 1.2 million on the pre-pandemic level. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that our back to work plan will see 30,000 more people in work over the forecast period.
Chris Elmore
The OBR revealed at the time of the autumn statement that after more than 13 years of this Conservative Government, 600,000 more people will be on health and disability benefits by 2028-29. Far from it being a back to work Budget, the Secretary of State knows that that is not anything like the truth and that the Tories are failing the employment market in this country.
Mel Stride
I cannot agree with that. In fact, I point the hon. Gentleman to the figure of 371,000, which is the number of people fewer the OBR forecasts will be on those very long-term sickness and disability benefits because of the reforms that this Government are bringing in.
Judith Cummins
Last week, the Office for National Statistics published figures showing that 6.6% of people of working age in Bradford are claiming out-of-work benefits, which is the highest rate in the Leeds city region. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Government’s back to work plan is working for people in my constituency of Bradford South?
Mel Stride
The back to work plan has billions of pounds-worth of investment behind it, including the £3.5 billion announced by the Chancellor in the spring Budget. Such things as extending restart, bringing forward mandatory placements after 18 months to ensure that people get into work and doubling universal support are important measures that will see increased numbers in work.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
All we hear from the Secretary of State on employment is smoke and mirrors, but thankfully the OBR has published the numbers. We have just heard what he believes is happening with employment because of his policies, but when the OBR looked at his policies, did its forecast show the employment rate, compared with today, to be going up or down in 2024-25?
Mel Stride
I have already shared the figures with the House, which are that payroll employment is at a near historic high and unemployment is at a near historic low. As the hon. Lady will know, we have never had a Labour Government leave office with unemployment lower at the end of their term than when they started. Youth unemployment went up 45% under the Labour party, whereas under this Conservative Government it has reduced by 45%.
Alison McGovern
You can always tell the Conservatives are struggling to answer the questions, Mr Speaker, because they go back to those same old things about what happened under the last Labour Government. After 13 years, they have nothing to be proud of. If what the Secretary of State said was true, we might expect that after a little time some of his policies would work, but is it not true that it is not just next year that the OBR forecasts the employment rate to be down, but the year after that, too?
Mel Stride
We will continue to bear down on the level of unemployment. As the hon. Lady knows, economic inactivity has reduced, and we have 300,000 fewer people in economic inactivity than at the peak during the pandemic. We have a plan. Is it not the reality that the Opposition have no plan and no ideas as to how to get those numbers down? We do, and it is working.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
In 2022-23, fraud and error fell by 10%. We are investing £900 million in addition to that which we have already put forward to prevent £2.4 billion of fraud and error by 2024-25.
Nigel Mills
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and welcome the measures the Government are taking. On the new powers to search through bank accounts to look for fraudulent transactions, can he confirm that the Government will seek to use them only where fraud is suspected and will not, as some people have suggested, search every state pensioner’s bank account to look for something that almost certainly will not be there?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for what is a very important question, because there has been a great deal of scaremongering about what exactly these powers are about. I can make it categorically clear from the Dispatch Box that these powers are there to make sure that, in instances where there is a clear signal of fraud or error, my Department is able to take action. In the absence of that, it will not.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The cost of living payments are a vital means of support during the cost of living crisis, but my constituent has lost out, through no fault of her own, because of the well-known issue whereby two of her work paydays fell within the assessment period used to assess eligibility. Will the Government review the eligibility process for the third cost of living payments to ensure that no one else misses out?
Mel Stride
This is a long-standing issue that crops up every few years. It is not something on which the Government intend to take specific action. We trust people to manage their finances, such that they can cope with the occasional eventuality where there is an additional year within any one calendar year.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Government have made it clear that we believe that work is the best route out of poverty. It is important for different types of work to exist, as each individual worker’s circumstances are personal to them, and DWP has an in-work progression offer to support low-paid claimants to progress into better-paid and more secure employment.
John Penrose
Does the Minister agree that the difference between insecure or exploitative work and going plural with a portfolio of well-paid freelance or part-time roles depends on how valuable someone’s skills are? Ministers are rightly offering fresh opportunities for jobseekers to improve their skills, but in a post-pandemic world that is very different from what went before, what plans does she have to revisit and update the recommendations of the Taylor review to protect people whose skills have not yet been upgraded?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As someone who was self-employed for not far off 15 years, I understand where he is coming from. Our work coaches at Jobcentre Plus offices engage with claimants to support access to skills provision. They get a comprehensive range of support, which includes apprenticeships, skills bootcamps, vocational and basic training skills, and careers advice, so that they can work in a way that suits them. Less than 1% of workers on zero-hours contracts want more hours—it is more about caring or other flexibilities—but I am happy to look at the points he has raised in the Chamber today.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Last week, Uber came to Parliament to brief MPs on partnerships it has set up to support its drivers, including its recognition agreement with the GMB trade union. All Uber private hire drivers are now auto-enrolled into a pension, but legal uncertainty means that that is not the case for Uber’s competitors. Is it not high time for the Government to bring forward their employment Bill, which was promised after the Taylor review, to provide a level playing field for employers and to tackle these problems of insecurity in the gig economy?
Mims Davies
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. In fact, I have an Uber T-shirt from my time as employment Minister, which the company gave me when it brought in the pension. I applaud the work that Uber has done to support its workforce. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is actually for another Department, but I will take those messages away.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
In 2023-24 we are spending around £124 billion through the welfare system on people of working age and children. Evidence shows the importance of work in reducing the risk of child poverty. With over 900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is on supporting parents into, and to progress within, work. Our recent autumn statement announcements, which included the back to work plan, increasing benefits and increasing the national living wage, are all part of our clear approach to ensuring that everybody gets the right support to progress and thrive.
Andrew Western
I hear what the Minister says, but a recent report from UNICEF showed that of 39 OECD and EU countries, the UK came last in terms of improvements in child poverty between 2012 and 2021. As a result, one in five children in my constituency of Stretford and Urmston are growing up in poverty. What more can the Minister do to address this truly appalling situation?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that report. I have looked at it, and it is important that we react to it. I point to our record of action. When it comes to further support for households with low incomes, we have heard in the Chamber—indeed, the Secretary of State mentioned this—about raising local housing allowance back to the 30th percentile, which will benefit 1.6 million low-income households by, on average, £800 a year in 2024-25. When that is added to the national living wage, the uprating of benefits and the availability of work, we are determined that those families will progress.
Janet Daby
According to End Child Poverty, 30% of children in Lewisham East were in poverty in 2021-22, while Lewisham food banks have seen a 42% increase compared to 2022. That comes after 13 years of this Conservative Government. To make matters worse, the reported cut to the national household support fund means that more than £13 million for households across Lewisham have been taken away. Is the Minister really serious about showing the leadership needed to stop families in my constituency from falling into destitution?
Mims Davies
I am really serious about supporting our young people. In fact, in Lewisham the household support fund, which is my domain, has allocated an additional £13.3 million to support the hon. Lady’s constituents. There are local hubs for debt management and engagement with the local authority, and warm welcome hubs. I say to anybody struggling in her constituency to look at the benefits calculators, and indeed help for households, on gov.uk.
Mary Glindon
Figures from the Trussell Trust show that in the six months between April and September, food banks in the north-east provided a record 26,000 emergency food parcels for children, with the need having doubled over the past five years. The majority of families who turn to food banks do so because their income, whether from social security or from wages, is too low to afford the basic essentials. Will the Minister explain why the current design of universal credit is failing these families?
Mims Davies
As we have heard from the Secretary of State, 400,000 fewer children are in absolute poverty, and we thank our food banks for the work they do in supporting our communities. We do take this seriously. We have added food security questions to the family resources survey, and we will absolutely look at that. I would point to the hon. Member’s constituency having been allocated an additional £8 million in the last household support fund for exactly those families.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
On Friday, pupils at Shaftesbury Junior School in my constituency gave me the lovely Christmas earrings that I am wearing, which they made themselves using computer-aided design. I am so proud of all their achievements, especially when more than a third of Leicester’s children are growing up in poverty, with all the challenges that brings. As my hon. Friends have said, figures from UNICEF show that under this Government the UK has had the biggest increase in child poverty out of the world’s 40 wealthiest countries. My question is simple: what is the Minister going to do about it?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady will have heard about our work on the LHA. I am extremely proud of the difference that it will make to families in her constituency and mine. With almost 1 million job vacancies across the UK, our firm believe is that supporting all families to progress and do well is the right thing to do. That comes with the full uprating that we have done this year on working-age benefits and supporting the LHA. The hon. Lady made the point that it has been a difficult time, and the household support fund and the cost of living payments, which start again on 6 February, will assist.
Liz Kendall
The Minister is completely out of touch with the reality facing families in Britain today: 3.8 million people face severe hardship this year, including 1 million children. Quite frankly, that is a shameful figure that has almost trebled since this Government abolished Labour’s Child Poverty Act 2010. Millions of parents are now worried about how they will feed, clothe or keep their children warm this Christmas, let along how they will buy them presents. When will the Minister change course, follow Labour’s lead and deliver a cross-Government child poverty strategy that gives every child the start in life that they deserve?
Mims Davies
We will absolutely not follow Labour’s lead—let us look at their record. People might be worried ahead of Christmas. Cost of living payments, the household support fund, the benefits calculator and help for households are all out there. I want the people watching now to know that support is there. Progression will vary depending on circumstances; we have a tailored approach. We have 37 district progression leads to help exactly those families that the hon. Lady talks about.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The actions that we take to lift children out of poverty say an awful lot about our values. In Scotland, we have lifted 90,000 children out of poverty, with measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment. Here in London, we have a Westminster Government, supported by the Labour party, wedded to a two-child policy that pushes 250,000 children into poverty. What does the Minister think it says about Westminster’s values on child poverty that they are wedded to a two-child policy with a rape clause?
Mims Davies
Adults in workless households are seven times more likely to be in poverty than those in working households. That is why our focus is on work. The Scotland Act 2016 gave the Scottish Parliament the powers that have been invoked, including on the child payment, and that is very pleasing for us. The Act transferred those powers for carers and disability benefits, worth £3.3 billion. The hon. Gentleman and his Government can make the decisions that suit their communities. That is the right approach.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
More than 8 million pensioner households will receive a £300 payment this winter to top up their winter fuel allowance payment. The 1.4 million pensioners currently in receipt of pension credit may also receive cost of living payments totalling up to £900 in 2023-24.
Damien Moore
In Southport we have a significant number of pensioners who, having lost their partners, now face the added challenge of managing increased living costs alone. Can the Minister kindly elaborate on what specific initiatives or support mechanisms are in place to assist people in those financially difficult circumstances, to ensure that they get the support they deserve?
Paul Maynard
Anyone who suffers a bereavement at any time will potentially be in severe financial difficulties. I direct my hon. Friend to the funeral expenses payment, which is part of the social fund. I would also point to the wider measures that we have taken, such as applying the triple lock—there will be an 8.5% increase in the state pension next year. We will also include cost of living payments in the winter fuel payment, of £500 or £600, depending on the age of the recipient.
David Simmonds
Despite the welcome fall in inflation, my constituent Deborah Garrard speaks for herself and many pensioners who are concerned about a second winter of high fuel prices. Will my hon. Friend outline what further measures the Department is considering to help reduce pensioners’ financial burden?
Paul Maynard
I know that Mrs Garrard will not be the only older resident in the country concerned about energy prices this winter. I just mentioned the increased cost of living payment that we are adding to the winter fuel payment. In addition, we have increased the warm home discount to up to £150, and there is a whole suite of cold weather payments that can be made in the event of seven days of sustained cold weather. We have a wide range of measures to help support people when faced with cold weather and high energy costs.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Universal credit is specifically designed to make work pay, with strong financial incentives such as the 55% earnings taper and work allowances. Working families can also get support with up to 85% of their childcare costs. The maximum amounts have been increased by 47%, up to £950 for one child and £1,630 for two or more children. Additionally, the rise in the national living wage from April means that some 2.7 million workers will be £1,800 better off, on average, as well as benefiting from national insurance cuts.
Stephen Metcalfe
I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome her back to the Front Bench. Basildon jobcentre recently hosted two health and social care recruitment events, which resulted in the filling of 20 vacancies, helping to reduce local unemployment. Does the Minister agree that work is the best route out of poverty and that it is this Government who are helping more people into work and aligning vacancies with employees?
Jo Churchill
First, I would just like to take a minute to thank Basildon jobcentre, and indeed all jobcentres, for the work they do, from Chorley to the west country and back to the east. Targeted recruitment fairs are a great way to work with specific sectors that have shortages, including health and social care, construction, manufacturing, and hospitality. My hon. Friend is right that getting more people into work is a top priority for the Department and across Government. We know that it is good for wellbeing, both personally and financially, and those in work are on average £6,000 better off a year.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The overall number of children in absolute poverty after housing costs remained stable between 2020-21 and 2021-22. The latest statistics show that in 2021-22 there were 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than in 2009-10. The Government continue to provide comprehensive support to help people find, progress in and thrive in work, recognising that that has to be sustainable in tackling poverty.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
A couple of weeks ago, when I asked the Prime Minister why 34% of children in Stockton North live in poverty, he claimed that child poverty was down. But even if we rely on his and his Government’s unique measuring tool, child poverty is still up, considerably, across every part of the north-east under his watch. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1 million British children have suffered destitution in the past year. When will the Prime Minister and his Ministers stop pretending that they care and make way for a Labour Government who will sort out the mess that shames the Tories?
Mims Davies
The Government are determined to ensure that all children, wherever they come from, have the best start in life. We are committed to supporting families and helping them into work. The full uprating, this year and last, is the signal.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Government are, of course, fully committed to protecting the most vulnerable, which is why we rolled out £104 billion in cost of living payments across the period from 2022 to 2025. It is why, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has repeatedly stressed, we increased the rates for the LHA housing support, and why benefits increased by the full 6.7%.
Richard Burgon
It is absolutely heartbreaking that in the world’s sixth-richest country we now have 4 million people living in destitution. We know that disabled people are more likely to live in poverty, yet this winter disabled people will not be getting any additional help with the cost of living after the separate disability cost of living payment was quietly dropped. The cost of living for disabled people is still going up, so will the Secretary of State commit to reinstating the payment, and at a level that meets the extra living costs faced by disabled people?
Mel Stride
I am not sure precisely which disability payment the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but certainly the cost of living disability payment has been paid this year, in addition to the increase in the national living wage, tax cuts and national insurance tax cuts, all of which help people, particularly those on low pay. That is why, under this Government, the level of absolutely poverty has fallen by 1.7 million since 2010, with 400,000 fewer children in poverty.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Flexible working can play an important role in supporting people to start, stay in and succeed in work, and for businesses to grow. I have already seen at first hand examples of good employers offering tailored roles or changed hours to support workers, particularly parents, who have caring responsibilities. Flexibility has made a difference and drives success for all.
Tim Loughton
As the Minister mentioned, the hospital industry—especially in coastal constituencies such as mine—is suffering disproportionately from high vacancy levels exacerbated by covid and the shift in working patterns. What more can the Government do to encourage smarter working and job sharing? For example, students and younger people could work some of the later and weekend hours—the less social hours—sharing with parents with family responsibilities, who could work more regular hours during the daytime.
Jo Churchill
The UK hospitality industry does a fantastic job, particularly at this time of the year when it is helping us to enjoy the festive season. I am providing help and collaboration by delivering pilot schemes across the industry. In particular, we are developing a more standardised approach to training, which includes a proposal to award a hospitality skills passport. We need to do all we can with workers to build confidence and the right skills. I am interested by my hon. Friend’s idea of helping employers to refocus where the needs are, and I shall be happy to work with him, because hospitality offers a great career and transferable skills.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I am fortunate in having already been able to meet representatives of the Pensions Regulator twice since my appointment to discuss the full gamut of their responsibilities.
Mr Carmichael
Members of the BP pension scheme, a defined-benefit scheme, have seen the value of their pensions fall by 11% in real terms as a consequence of their senior management’s refusal to upgrade them in line with the cost of living, although the pension fund itself has a £5 billion surplus. Does the Minister agree that if the rules allow companies such as BP to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to their own pensioners, these are rules that need to be changed?
Paul Maynard
That is certainly something I need to look into. When people raise the issue of specific pension schemes, I am always conscious of just how many thousands of scheme members are potentially watching, so I do not wish to speak off the cuff and raise hopes that I may not be able to fulfil. However, I shall be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the circumstances in greater detail and see what can be done.
Mr Speaker
I call Rob Roberts. He is otherwise engaged. I call Virginia Crosbie.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government have a range of initiatives to help disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay in and succeed in work. We built on that in the autumn statement by expanding universal support, launching WorkWell pilots, reforming the fit note and establishing an expert group on occupational health.
Virginia Crosbie
Does the Minister agree that the Disability Confident jobs fair that I am hosting in Holyhead with my brilliant Anglesey DWP team is an opportunity for excellent local businesses such as Hafan y Môr and Llechwedd Meats, and organisations such as Môn Communities Forward and the Menter Môn enterprise hub, to help people with disabilities back into work, and will she lobby the Secretary of State to visit Ynys Môn in February to open the disability jobs fair?
Mims Davies
I do not want to commit the Secretary of State, but I have a feeling that he will be in Ynys Môn in February. I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that she does in respect of local jobcentres, and for her work with those employers. I met her just last week to discuss her focus on young people. Her Local Jobs for Local People campaign is a great example of her tireless work for the future of the community in Ynys Môn—so, iechyd da!
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
May I begin by welcoming my new team to the Front Bench? Joining the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), and Lord Younger in the other place are the new Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I know that they will make a great contribution to the Department. Let me also thank those who have departed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who have important other duties in Government.
This has been a year of considerable achievement for my Department. We have already heard about the cost of living payments, the support for the most vulnerable, the 6.7% increase in working-age benefits, the 8.5% increase in respect of the triple lock for pensioners, welfare reform, near-record levels of payroll employment and almost historically low levels of unemployment, and rising real wages.
Siobhan Baillie
I welcome the Government’s decision to boost childcare payments for parents on universal credit by almost 50%, which the Work and Pensions Committee pushed for. I have asked the Department to review childcare rules for parents in training and education, but can my right hon. Friend outline the other ways in which the Government are supporting low-income families in Stroud?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is being too modest in laying all the progress at the door of the Select Committee, because it was she in particular who pushed for those reforms to childcare within universal credit, and I believe that she was quite rightly name-checked by the Chancellor in his Budget statement. We of course have the back to work plan, the extension of restart, the doubling of universal support, the greatest-ever increase in the national living wage and the reductions in employee national insurance, all of which are there to drive further employment.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
During the recent covid inquiry, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), said that statutory sick pay was “far too low” and that if he had a magic wand, he would fix it. Given that the Secretary of State has the magic wand, as the Minister responsible for this, when is he going to fix it?
Mel Stride
I am certainly not going to start making policy up on the hoof at the Dispatch Box this afternoon or promising more money for statutory sickness pay. That would require discussions across Government, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
I thank my hon. Friend and note his relentless support for the seafood industry more broadly and the processing industry in particular. I understand that the former Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), visited Scotland earlier this year to look at that industry. Work coaches offer tailored employment support to all jobseekers and the flexible support fund is available at the discretion of jobcentres to purchase goods and services, including travel, to support claimants to move from one area to another in order to take up job opportunities. I know that my hon. Friend is working hard in his local area to find solutions, and I am always happy to discuss ideas with him.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
The advice to anyone seeking to top up their pension or buy extra national insurance credits would be to ring the Future Pension Centre in advance of making any payments, to determine whether they would actually enhance their pension by making them. It is always best for people to check before they make those payments, to make sure that they will improve their pension.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Jo Churchill
The DWP regularly publishes statistics on its employment programmes, and the latest statistical release of the restart programme was published on 7 December. The back to work plan announced further measures to tackle long-term unemployment, such as mandatory placements for those who complete restart without securing a job. The policy detail, including the reporting, is yet to be worked through.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, these are matters for the Treasury, and specifically for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He and I have conversations on these matters and others. Announcements will be made in due course, but of course the household support fund will be in place until the end of March.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Paul Maynard
As pensions Minister, my main focus is on making sure that we have a high-quality, sustainable pension system that, year on year, keeps the value of the overall state pension as high as possible and that meets our manifesto commitment to the triple lock. That is the best way of focusing on the value of the state pension.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Twenty months ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 agreement request to the Department, following concerns regarding breaches and potential discrimination against disabled people. Why has the Department still not reached an agreement?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, there are ongoing discussions on these matters. By virtue of the legislation that underpins those interactions, the discussions are necessarily held in private. I am informed that they have resulted in positive engagement, and that the Department and the EHRC will come forward with a response as soon as possible.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Jo Churchill
It is fantastic to hear of the job opportunities created by Lidl in South West Bedfordshire. I know my hon. Friend will be working hard with Lidl and his local jobcentre to make sure the vacancies are filled with local talent. Jobcentres can work closely with large employers, as I have recently seen at Morrisons, which has a specific neurodiversity pilot to bring people into the job market. The barriers that restrict neurodiverse people are often challenges around confidence and so on. Jobcentres are a brilliant force for good, and I recommend that everybody engages with them on bespoke schemes for neurodiversity or any other focus on tackling long-term unemployment.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
In 2010 there were 117,000 16 to 24-year-olds on long-term sickness and health benefits. That figure now stands at a massive 235,000. Why is that, and what are the Government doing about those appalling figures?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a marked increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, particularly among those aged 16 to 24, which is why we are bringing in measures such as universal support and talking therapies within the national health service, for which 400,000 additional places were announced by the Chancellor at the autumn statement. We have introduced measures such as WorkWell, and others, to address exactly these issues.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I have patiently sat through questions, and I have not heard Disability Confident mentioned once. Disability Confident was, and I hope still is, a very successful scheme that I launched when I was a Minister—I went around the country with Simon Weston. Can I have confidence that the scheme is still in place?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
My right hon. Friend will be delighted to know it is at the heart of the work that the Employment Minister spoke about today. It is at the heart of our disability action plan, which Members will hear more about in the new year. I advise all employers to focus on being disability confident and employing with confidence, rather than just writing about it on a website.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
After the UK Government appallingly downgraded the dedicated role of disabilities Minister, Scope’s executive director, James Taylor, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that
“the UK’s 16 million disabled people deserve so much better than this treatment.”
It is a clear message that the UK Government do not view disabled people as a priority. Will this Government urgently reverse their decision and reinstate the role?
Mel Stride
That is a complete misunderstanding; the hon. Lady refers to reinstating the role, but all the responsibilities of the previous disability Minister have been taken over by the current one, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who happens to be the most experienced Minister in my Department. She is extraordinarily capable; she absolutely understands the issues and will do a fantastic job.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the new disabilities Minister, as I know she shares my passion for closing the autism employment gap. Will she work with me, as we reach the closing stages of my independent review of autism and employment, to make sure that the publication of the report will be the beginning of a process whereby we can dramatically tackle the scandal of having fewer than three in 10 autistic adults in employment?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the opportunity to build on that incredible work, which will be life-changing for many of our constituents. The people we are talking about today are not statistics; they are humans, and they need to have a real difference in their lives. For Opposition Members, and everyone else listening today, let me say that I am determined to make sure that those people have a voice across Government and that I use my experience to deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), a recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggested that destitution in Northern Ireland is set to rise to 67%. That is a truly horrific and worrying figure. What discussions has the Minister had with partners back home in Northern Ireland on this matter?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. Our focus is on tackling poverty and making sure that work supports everyone across the UK. I am delighted to be coming to Northern Ireland fairly soon, when I will pick up those discussions further.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The great working city of Gloucester has a high employment rate, but we still have some people who could help to fill vacancies in both city and county. So the Gloucester opportunities fair on 23 February provides a great opportunity not just for all my constituents, including to get free advice on debt, volunteering and benefits, but perhaps for the new Employment Minister, whom I welcome to her place, to come to join us in celebrating the availability in Gloucester and the support for those working there.
Jo Churchill
If my diary allows, I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituents Susan and David Cfas have made representations to me about the situation facing them and many other pensioners who are having to access benefits and other Government support because they are stuck in an annuity trap, whereby at retirement they posted an annuity, which has remained fixed. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the plight of pensioners in that situation to see whether more can be done to encourage them to access different approaches to increase their income?
Paul Maynard
That is certainly one reason why we are trying to get people to engage in a more considered way with what they do at the point of the decumulation of their pension funds, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his specific concerns about annuities in due course.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Trussell Trust has recently reported that in the past year there has been an 80% increase in the number of children in Stretford and Urmston being supported with food parcels. Can the Minister tell me why it believes that is the case?
Mel Stride
The record speaks for itself: this Government have been behind £104 billion-worth of support for the most vulnerable over the period 2022 to 2025; poverty in absolute terms, after housing, has fallen by 1.7 million since 2009-10, when the hon. Gentleman’s party was last in office; we have 400,000 fewer children and 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolutely poverty—under the last Labour Government, we had the fourth highest level of pensioner poverty in Europe; and we have put the national living wage up by 9.8% and cut taxes as well.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I add my warm welcome to my near neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, as the new disabilities Minister? Does she acknowledge that one feature of covid has been a big increase in the incidence of mental health issues, particularly among younger people? What is her Department doing to tailor its programmes to get those non-working parts of the population who have not been working since covid and are suffering from mental health challenges back into the workforce?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to this brief. I will still be very much focused on young people and those key transitions in their lives. We have our reform relating to universal support, our fit note reform and our WorkWell partnerships, which launched on 16 November and will support 60,000 long-term sick and disabled people to start, stay and succeed in work. The youth hubs we have at the Department for Work and Pensions, which are focused on the under-25s, zero in on this issue in particular.
Trial of Jimmy Lai
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what steps he is taking to support Jimmy Lai during his trial and if he will call for his immediate and unconditional release.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Foreign Secretary has called on the Hong Kong authorities to end their prosecution of Jimmy Lai and release him. He also urged the Chinese authorities to repeal the national security law and end the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. The Foreign Secretary and I welcomed the opportunity to meet Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, again last week and to listen to his concerns as the trial approached.
As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, Mr Lai’s prosecution is politically motivated. He has faced multiple charges to discredit and silence him. As an outspoken journalist and publisher, he has been targeted in a clear attempt to stop the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and association. The Foreign Secretary raised Mr Lai’s prosecution with Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 5 December, as his predecessor did in Beijing on 30 August. We will continue to press for Mr Lai’s release with the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities.
Diplomats from our consulate general attended court today as a visible sign of the UK’s support, and they will continue to do so. We will continue to press for consular access to Mr Lai, which the Hong Kong prison authorities have repeatedly refused. China considers anyone of Chinese heritage born in China to be a Chinese national. It does not recognise other nationalities and therefore considers Mr Lai to be exclusively Chinese.
More broadly, we have made it clear that the national security law has damaged Hong Kong and its way of life. Rights and freedoms have been significantly eroded and arrests under the law have silenced opposition voices. It is a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, the legally binding UN-registered treaty that China willingly entered into. Its continued existence and use is a demonstration of China breaking its international commitments. We will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out violations of their rights and freedoms, and to hold China to its international obligations.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response.
Jimmy Lai is and has always been a full British citizen and he has never held a Chinese passport, and therefore he should have been publicly recognised by the Government some time ago. However, I welcome the change in rhetoric by the Foreign Secretary, who said today that
“Jimmy Lai is a British citizen”
and called on the Chinese Government to release him. I am pleased that there seems to have been a shift in policy. Notwithstanding that, I and hon. Friends have raised the issue of his citizenship with the Foreign Office to no avail, until now.
At the heart of the issue lies the Sino-British agreement. I recall that at the time of its signing, the ambassador in Beijing, Percy Cradock, said of China’s leaders that they may be “thuggish dictators” but that they were “men of their word” and could be
“trusted to do what they promise”.
How history always shows us wrong. We cannot trust thuggish dictators, and they have trashed the Sino-British agreement without so much as a by-your-leave. Instead, we now have political persecution, destruction of press freedoms, forced confessions and the targeting of foreign nationals as a matter of course. The national security law is the key, because it has been stripping away their rights, and particularly those of Jimmy Lai, who faces a lifetime in prison.
A new axis of totalitarian states has formed, including China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and Syria. We must be on our toes and realise that their target is democracy itself. Given that, will the Government reconsider their words in the integrated review and reinstate the idea that China is a systemic threat, not just to us but to the very values that we seek?
I must tell the Government that an individual already known to me and some others is being used in the persecution of Jimmy Lai. We know that he has been tortured to give evidence, so, clearly, his evidence cannot be relied on. In the light of that, will the Government give a commitment today that if and when UK or other citizens are targeted through the evidence at Jimmy Lai’s trial, concrete actions will be taken to protect them, and that we will do so by working with our allies, including the US, Japan, and others in Europe? This is a very serious issue and it may yet erupt.
Will the Government now sanction John Lee and others responsible for Hong Kong’s national security law? After all, the US has sanctioned 10 people and we have sanctioned none. Are the UK Government considering how to allow Hong Kong asylum applications to switch to British National (Overseas) applications to save all the heartache? As we approach Christmas, Mr Speaker, this brave and devoted Christian will—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is way, way over time. I am sure that other hon. Members will bring in the other points.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I think we all agree with my right hon. Friend that the breaching of the Sino-British joint declaration is a great tragedy. As the Foreign Secretary set out, the national security law, which we are calling on the Hong Kong authorities to repeal, is breaching so many of those values that we understood that China was willing to maintain with Hong Kong after 1997.
My right hon. Friend mentions the integrated review refresh, in which the Prime Minister set out very clearly our perspective, which is that we consider China to be an epoch-defining challenge. It then sets out in great detail a number of areas of concern around China and economic coercive activity. We continue to work closely with the G7 and other partners around the world to tackle that and to work together to try to persuade China to reverse some of those policies.
Importantly—I say this a lot at the Dispatch Box as the sanctions Minister—I listen very closely, as do all of us here and our officials in the Foreign Office, on all issues related to potential future sanctions. We continue to look at those under the global human rights sanctions regulations in this arena, but we do not speculate about future sanctions designations, because of course that could reduce their impact.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The ongoing detention of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, is a stark symbol of the decline of Hong Kong’s freedoms and China’s flagrant disregard for the legally binding Sino-British agreement, which promised a high degree of autonomy for Hongkongers for 50 years. Jimmy Lai’s trial is a further chapter in the erosion of the liberties promised then to the people of Hong Kong.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have met Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, regularly and made unequivocally clear Labour’s position that Jimmy must be released immediately and that the national security law under which he is being charged is abhorrent. I welcome the intervention by the new Foreign Secretary as Mr Lai’s trial begins today, but there must be sustained interest by the Government, in a way that has been sorely lacking until now.
We cannot sit idly by while British citizens experience a politically motivated trial and the authorities attempt to stifle freedom of expression. I urge the Minister to give a firm commitment right here that the Foreign Secretary’s intervention will not be a one-off, and that the Government will follow Labour’s lead in sustained, consistent and full-throated support for Mr Lai and his legal counsel, and in putting the freedoms promised to the people of Hong Kong at the top of her agenda.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the Minister both for the Indo-Pacific region—China and Hong Kong are in my purview—and for sanctions, the issues of Jimmy Lai and others held in this way are very much at the top of my agenda. They always have been and always will remain so.
I have met Sebastien Lai on a number of occasions this year, and have worked closely with him and his team to understand the situation and to look at the support that we can provide. The frustration is that we are not able to provide consular access, because we are not allowed to visit him in prison. The Foreign Secretary set out yesterday that he has called for Jimmy Lai’s release, and we will continue to sustain that throughout the trial. At the moment, we expect the trial to last some 80 days, so we expect to see it wrap up in the summer. We will be working very closely with like-minded partners—US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, European and Swiss representatives were also in court today—to make it clear that we all have one view, which is that this is a trial from which Jimmy Lai needs to be released.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am interested in the question of Mr Lai’s nationality status. If he is a full British citizen, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether Hong Kong has unilaterally withdrawn consular rights for foreign missions to visit their citizens in prison, or is that specifically the case for those imprisoned under the national security law? Whichever it is, could she confirm that the Foreign Office has done everything possible to ensure that the Hong Kong Government realise that those rights of access for our citizens should not be violated lightly?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is right that consular access should, in an ideal world, be provided to all those who find themselves in prison, whatever the country. The frustrating fact is that it is up to a country—not specifically China—whether it considers dual nationality acceptable. Obviously, we will consider such a dual national British; they will have a British passport. We have absolutely done everything, and we continue to ask for consular access for Jimmy Lai. I was able to help him get a new passport earlier in the year because his old one had run out; we worked with the Home Office to ensure that. We are very comfortable and certain that he is indeed a British citizen, but as I set out, the Hong Kong authorities consider a Hong Kong national born in mainland China to be a Chinese citizen—hence their view on dual nationality, and the impossibility of our authorities visiting him in prison at the moment.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question, and Lord Alton, Baroness Kennedy and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their continuing and unwavering support for Jimmy Lai, who, as a UK national, is entitled to expect much more support from the Government than he has thus far received.
A 76-year-old pro-democracy campaigner in ailing health has been imprisoned for more than 1,000 days on trumped-up charges, yet it was only yesterday that his Government finally called for him to be released. I hope that I have misunderstood the Minister, but are we to believe that the UK’s influence is so diminished that we cannot get access to Mr Lai in prison? Will she detail what practical support is being given to him now that his show trial has started, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that, in the event that Beijing gets the verdict that it is looking for, the Government will proactively come to this House to make a statement on what action they intend to take, rather than having it dragged out of them through another urgent question?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I will not reiterate my previous answer on the subject of consular access and the challenges that we face in being able to support Jimmy Lai in that way. I reiterate the hon. Member’s point that many colleagues across the House have been ardent champions and supporters of Jimmy Lai, and indeed of his family as they seek to ensure that his case is understood across the world. We will continue to call for Jimmy Lai’s release. The national security law needs to be repealed. Those are messages that we will continue to highlight with the authorities at every possible opportunity.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Can I thank you personally, Mr Speaker, for granting today’s urgent question? The pantomime trial of Jimmy Lai is just the tip of a huge iceberg of the Chinese Communist party’s industrial-scale abuse of human rights and indifference to the international rule of law. Today, Parliaments around the world are expressing their solidarity with Jimmy Lai and the oppressed, freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, but there must be consequences. It is no good just monitoring human rights sanctions across the globe; my right hon. Friend has had years to name some of the legal and other officials of the Chinese Government who are undermining and abusing human rights as we speak. When will we see action, and what is she doing to address the concerns about the continual erosion of the judicial process in Hong Kong, and the involvement there of British judges? We need action, not constant warm words.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We continue to use sanctions tools across the piece at every opportunity where the evidence comes to us and we can use it, bearing in mind that, as we always say—I am sorry that it is frustrating for colleagues—we will never discuss potential future sanctions designations, because it could reduce their impact. We will always listen to and look closely at the evidence brought to us, and indeed at the work that our teams across the world do, to try to bring to bear our sanctions regimes against the human rights violations that we are seeing.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Sadly, as we predicted, the people of Hong Kong have seen their freedoms systematically eroded since the national security law was introduced in 2020. Pro-democracy activists such as Jimmy Lai have been detained, public libraries have been emptied of books seen as promoting so-called bad ideologies and the recent “patriots only” local elections saw opposition candidates banned from standing. Can the Minister please explain how the UK Government plan to uphold their commitment to human rights and freedom for all Hongkongers?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is right; it has been tragic to see the disintegration of all those freedoms, which, when both countries signed up to the Sino-British joint declaration, we considered that China would stand by. Of course, when we saw the national security law coming in, we responded very quickly and decisively, in particular with the new immigration path for British national overseas passport holders, so that we could provide that security for those who felt under most stress. We also suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely to provide protection for those people and we have extended our arms embargo on mainland China to cover Hong Kong. This is a tragic situation, and we will continue to call for change and for the Hong Kong authorities to reverse the national security law and restore those freedoms that were part of Hong Kong’s extraordinary opportunity for economic success, as well as other things.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Given everything that is happening in China, including this pitiful show trial, is it not now time that the Government of this country developed a proper, coherent cross-Government strategy for dealing with China, since they are patently lacking one at the moment?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As we set out in the integrated review refresh published in March, China’s challenge to both economic and global security is one that we consider to be right at the heart of the challenges we face. We continue to work closely with officials and in concert with G7 and other partners around the world to tackle some of those challenges.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister will be aware, I hope, that Timothy Owen KC, who is part of Jimmy Lai’s defence team, is currently in Hong Kong but, because of the failure to give him a visa to deal with Jimmy Lai’s case, is not able to appear for Jimmy Lai. Will she make representations to the local authorities as a matter of urgency saying that surely the right to appoint counsel of one’s own choosing is a fundamental in any fair legal system, and that we would expect that opportunity to be given to Mr Lai?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The interpretation by China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the national security law at the end of last year stated that the Chief Executive would have to certify whether an act or issue involved national security, including the question of overseas lawyers’ participation; otherwise, its statement was that the Chief Executive-led National Security Committee should make the decision. So, attempts to challenge that have sadly failed and the High Court has noted that Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction over it, but we have called on the Chief Executive to respect those rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and to uphold the rule of law as we all understand it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How many times must a totalitarian communist state behave like a totalitarian communist state before the Government will recognise it as a totalitarian communist state?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I do not quite know how to follow such an articulately put question. My right hon. Friend highlights one of the many challenges for those of us who believe in, uphold and want to allow other countries around the world to uphold those values and freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of association—and we will continue to work with allies and partners to highlight and to sanction, where we can and where we have the tools to do so, those who continue to breach those freedoms.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Jimmy Lai’s UK-based legal team. However, they have been subject to incredible levels of cyber harassment and other forms of harassment and interference while working on his legal case. What is the Minister doing with other Departments to ensure that lawyers and journalists involved in promoting and advocating for freedom and democracy around the world are protected from such unacceptable levels of transnational repression?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: there have been shocking attempts to dissuade, make fearful and stop Jimmy Lai’s legal teams here in the UK getting on with their job of defending his case and raising the issues that we have set out today. We work closely with the Home Office, as do his lawyers, to support it and other parts of Government to provide those teams with the technical support that they need. We will continue to do that. It is perhaps a question to pick up and discuss in more detail with the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I can ask him whether he will discuss it with the hon. Lady, should she so wish.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Ten days ago, on 8 December, Jimmy had his 76th birthday—it is not rude to say that he is not a young man. This House could send a message to the rest of the world through an early-day motion. An early-day motion was tabled on 13 December by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and more Members need to sign it. I will not give the honour to people outside this Chamber who decry early-day motions—although, in fact, there are not that many of them. If we want to send a message, there is a methodology, although it is not the only one. I know that lots of colleagues do not like signing early-day motions, but on this occasion, perhaps they should.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tools that we have at our disposal here in the mother of Parliaments, which allow for freedom of speech and expression, are incredibly important. As a Minister who spends a lot of her time on the other side of the world in countries large and small, I am very conscious that the messaging from this Parliament is heard loud and clear in every other country. We perhaps forget just how important our voice is in standing up for the values that we believe in.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Mr Lai’s detention is a shocking symbol of the erosion not just of human rights but of freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Given everything that we are seeing unfolding, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we are supportive of what remains of a free press in Hong Kong?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Jimmy Lai has been an extraordinary champion of free speech, which he chose to continue, despite the changing landscape in Hong Kong. We continue to support people across the piece, many of whom have come to the UK for sanctuary, to be able to be able to speak out and use our freedom of press to share their concerns and highlight the abuses they are seeing.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I join the calls for Jimmy Lai’s release. He is a devout Catholic, and his faith motivates his courageous campaigning for democracy in Hong Kong. After the sustained dismantling in Hong Kong of freedoms of expression, of association, of the press, of judicial independence and others, does the Minister share my concerns that the threats to freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong are now very real? If she does not, will she please read “Sell Out My Soul: The Impending Threats to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Hong Kong”, the new report by Hong Kong Watch?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend continues in her role to be an extraordinary champion for freedom of religion or belief, and I absolutely agree with her. We continue, of course, to monitor freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong through our regular six-monthly reports to Parliament and through interactions with local faith leaders. The latest report, published on 19 September, noted that:
“Religious practice is generally not restricted,”
with a variety of
“religious practices coexisting across the territory.”
She is absolutely right: the strength that Jimmy Lai seeks and finds through his faith is extraordinary and it will help him in this very difficult time.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the urgent question. Jimmy Lai has many supporters in the UK, including Brits and those from Hong Kong, but many of them have experienced intimidation and harassment here in the UK from the Chinese Communist party. Those from Hong Kong face certain persecution, arrest and detention if they are forced to return. Twelve activists have recently been told by the UK Government that they are not at risk and have had their asylum claims rejected. Can the Minister explain UK Government policy on whether Hong Kong campaigners should qualify for asylum in the UK?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I set out earlier, we brought forward the British nationals overseas route for Hong Kong residents to come to the UK. So far, approximately 191,000 applications have been processed, and 184,700 have been granted. The point the hon. Gentleman mentions is one that I am aware the Home Office is looking into. There has been a change in relation to age in the processing, and there is an issue there that I know it is looking at now. I will ask the Home Office to update him once it has finished its review.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
A regime such as this has to be judged not on its words, but on its deeds. In its systematic demolition of the rule of law and now of the independence of the legal profession itself, which was such a lively part of an economically successful and prosperous Hong Kong, China is demonstrating its real intentions. What more can the Government do not only to take direct action by way of sanction against the individuals concerned, but to make the strong point that the Basic Law is not an historical document, but a living instrument, and that we expect it to be adhered to?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. and learned Friend highlights an issue with which he is very familiar—he practises the law—and, indeed, he is absolutely right. The judiciary, the legal profession and those who are servants of it assure the safety and the right outcome of cases, and we will continue to challenge the Hong Kong authorities on the failures of the national security law and call for it to be repealed.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The rule of law and how it is upheld across the world are absolutely essential to our global security and peace, and Mr Lai’s case shows how fragile they are, so what more can the Government do to reassert the importance of our all abiding by the rule of law?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and much of the work that our diplomatic teams across the world do is in countries where the rule of law is not necessarily adhered to, but where there are abuses, human rights violations and so on. We continue to highlight and challenge those, working alongside international partners to persuade those leaderships to change their ways, and to understand both the merits of a well-delivered legal system and the value that adds to the credibility of the political leadership of their nations. It is something we do week in, week out. Sadly, there are many countries across the world where these challenges continue, but it is right at the heart of the diplomatic service’s work.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The use of international lawyers has been a long-standing practice in Hong Kong, and we have failed Mr Lai. Will the Minister advise exactly what steps will be taken, and when, to secure or attempt to secure international legal representation of the British citizen Mr Lai?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I set out in answer to an earlier question, Jimmy Lai obviously wanted to have his own choice of legal representation. He has a fantastic team of lawyers here in the UK supporting him. The challenge for those representing him at the trial is one that we continue to highlight, as I set out earlier. The frustration in the way this system works means that he does not have the international lawyer of his choosing with him. However, we will continue to highlight those failings and, as so many colleagues have highlighted, what we consider the right use of the legal system and such independent representation should be.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Every reasonable democrat will be happy to support the plea of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on behalf of Mr Lai. However, there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air. In 2021, former ambassador Craig Murray was imprisoned on the fabricated conceit of jigsaw identification, and Julian Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison for 1,300 or more days. Will the Government lead by example and desist from harassing journalist Craig Murray and others, and free Julian Assange now?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not quite sure that that meets what we were expecting, so I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I am thankful that the Foreign Secretary publicly acknowledged the case of Jimmy Lai at the United Nations in February 2023, and reportedly raised the case with Chinese officials during his visit to Beijing, the fact is that a British citizen remains behind bars. May I gently remind right hon. and hon. Members of early-day motion 213, to which they might want to add their names, and ask that the Foreign Secretary, with the voice of the entire British Government, including our Prime Minister and this House, calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai, who has spent 1,000 days behind bars? Will the Minister do that today, and follow it through tomorrow with the appropriate channels?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman is the most incredible champion for so many whose lives, and whose families’ lives, continue to be blighted by challenges to freedom of religion or belief. He is always willing to stand up for them. As a Minister, I do not think I am allowed to sign EDMs, but should you wish to change that rule, Mr Speaker, I would be extremely happy to sign this one. I think that all Members of the House who are able to sign it should do so.
Mr Speaker
I cannot sign EDMs either—even the girl guiding one—but I am sure that other Members will wish to do so. Let us move on.
Global Combat Air Programme Treaty
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
Thank you for that warm welcome, Mr Speaker. With permission I would like to share details of the treaty that I signed with my Japanese and Italian counterparts last Thursday.
A year ago, the Prime Ministers of the UK, Japan and Italy agreed to work together on a joint programme to develop a new generation of military combat aircraft. Supersonic and armed with an array of revolutionary new capabilities, our global combat air programme, or GCAP for short, will deliver vital military capability, strengthening and sustaining our combat air sectors, and setting the standard for future combat air. Above all, it will bolster our collective security. The fact is that we are living in a much more dangerous and contested world. Our skies and international airspace are increasingly contested, not least from threats posed by Russia and China. All three treaty countries are already making significant investments in combat air to pursue these lofty ambitions. During recent years, the Ministry of Defence alone has invested £2 billion in UK combat air technology, with a further £600 million from industry to shape the capabilities and develop the necessary skills pipeline to deliver this state-of-the-art aircraft for the future.
Today I am pleased to announce, as an early Christmas present to the House, a major milestone in that programme. On Thursday 14 December in Tokyo, alongside my Italian Defence Minister colleague Guido Crosetto and my Japanese colleague Minister Minoru Kihara, I signed the GCAP treaty. It establishes the legal basis for the formation of a new GCAP international governmental organisation. As everyone seems fond of acronyms, the GIGO—or, as Guido Crosetto told me, the “JIGO”—is now formed. It is with great pleasure that I now confirm that the headquarters of the GIGO will be in the UK.
The GIGO will be responsible for delivering vital military innovation, strengthening our trinational industrial capacity, and getting the most punch out of our pounds, euro and yen. While located in the UK, it will, however, be a partnership of equals, which is why the first chief executive of the new GCAP agency will be from Japan, and the first chief executive officer of the joint venture will be from Italy.
It is worth spending a brief moment reiterating why GCAP is so strategically important. It will immeasurably enhance our freedom of action, ensuring that the RAF has the global reach and cutting-edge capabilities it needs to conduct operations and exercises for decades to come. It will deepen our collaboration with partners in the Euro-Atlantic at a time of increasing instability, and it will also ensure that we remain a key player in the Indo-Pacific theatre, which will only grow in geopolitical influence and importance over decades to come. Indeed, our new treaty already builds upon our existing defence relationships with Japan, complementing the recently signed reciprocal access agreement, which facilitates mutually beneficial defence co-operation, and I was able to speak about that in Japan last week.
Like AUKUS, today’s treaty is a truly multi-decade endeavour with like-minded partners who share our view of the international environment. The agreement arrives two years after we deployed our magnificent Royal Navy carrier strike group in 2021, and it is two years away from a planned carrier strike group deployment in 2025, which will include Japan. Collectively the signal we are sending both to our allies and to our adversaries is clear: the UK is deeply committed to Indo-Pacific security and Euro-Atlantic security, as well as global security. In increasingly uncertain and deadly times, we will do everything in our power to preserve an open and stable international order.
We should never forget, however, that GCAP is more than just an engine of security; it is also an engine of prosperity. With key combat air hubs in the north-west and south-west of England and in Edinburgh, GCAP will help accelerate economic growth across the country. There are already around 3,000 people working on the future combat air programme in the UK, with almost 600 organisations on contracts across the country, including many SMEs and academic institutions. The GIGO headquarters alone will support hundreds of jobs here in the UK. It will attract substantial inward investment in research and development, providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled engineers and technicians, not to mention the prospect of thousands more high-value jobs right across the supply chains of our three nations.
More than that, it is a programme of such size and sophistication—it is a programme that will innovate on such an extraordinary scale, using artificial intelligence, digital twinning, open architecture and robotic engineering —that I believe it will inspire a whole new generation to get into engineering, aerospace and defence. Today, we are glimpsing the future, and it comes after months of intensive work to get this together with Japan and Italy, establishing the concept of a GCAP aircraft and the joint structures to launch the development phase in 2025.
One year on from the landmark deal that three Prime Ministers put together, our GCAP partnership is soaring to new heights. Getting here has been the product of immense effort and long sleepless nights from colleagues in all three countries. I pay tribute to their tireless effort, because today we fire up the thrusters to turbo-boost our nations towards a revolutionary air capability. That capability will one day surpass an earlier pantheon of legends in the sky, from the Spitfire to the Tornado and from the Typhoon to the F-35. It is a capability that will initiate a step-change in the industrial co-operation between our three nations and will usher in a new era of combat air power. Given all it will do for our country, I have no doubt that, when it comes to formally laying the treaty for ratification before this Parliament, it will meet with the approval of colleagues on both sides of the House. The treaty has been published on gov.uk today, and I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement this afternoon and for early sight of it.
We welcome the treaty that he signed on behalf of the UK last week with Japan and Italy, and we warmly welcome the decision to locate the GCAP government headquarters in London. The treaty is the latest in the planned steps for developing our tri-nation sixth-generation fighter and weaponry. Ukraine has shown us that some of our strongest allies are in east Asia and the Pacific, and we share with them concern about China’s growing military power and assertiveness in the region. We want to see peace, stability and deterrence strengthened in the Indo-Pacific. GCAP is, like AUKUS, a strategic UK commitment to contribute to that. I know it is welcomed in Washington and Canberra, just like AUKUS.
Most importantly, developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence technology. The Defence Secretary is right to report that to the House.
Defence industrial collaboration underpinned by treaty is unusual. It is a multi-decade undertaking for this nation. As the Secretary of State says, it should command support across the House, and Ministers should report on it openly and regularly. May I ask him what scope the treaty allows to work with other allies, both at a secondary level and as primary partners? Does article 50 ensure that the export problems with the Typhoon will not be encountered with GCAP? When will he lay the treaty before Parliament for ratification?
This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD’s equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain’s defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the defence budget. In June, the defence Command Paper reaffirmed that the UK would spend £2 billion on this project “out to 2025”. Will the Secretary of State confirm what funding has been made available for GCAP in the defence budget for 2025 and 2026? In response to a written question, the then procurement Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), told me back in March:
“We will determine the cost-sharing arrangements ahead of the next phase”.
Has that now been done, ahead of the treaty signing?
Meanwhile, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority this year downgraded the GCAP programme to red, which rates
“successful delivery…to be unachievable. There are major issues which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.”
What are the major issues that led to the IPA downgrade? What action is the Secretary of State now taking to lift the red rating?
The Secretary of State said this afternoon that the joint development phase will launch in 2025. His press statement on the treaty signing said this combat aircraft is
“due to take to the skies in 2035”.
Keeping the programme on time, as well as in budget, will be critical, so by what date does he expect the design to be locked down, the national work shares to be settled, the manufacturing agreements to be in place, and the first flight trials to begin?
Signing the treaty is the easy part. Britain and its allies must now do the hard work to get this new-generation fighter aircraft in the air and on time.
Grant Shapps
May I start by warmly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman’s welcoming of this treaty signing and the overall programme? As I say, Members on both sides of the House agree that the defence of the realm comes first. In an ever more dangerous world, it is important to have the facilities that a sixth-generation fighter aircraft would bring.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the HQ is coming to London, but I want to put it on record that it is coming to the UK. We have not decided a location for it yet. I think there are 20-plus potential locations, so I would not want to assume that it will be based in London. We are not as London-centric on everything as he may be.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about examples of working internationally previously. It is worth pointing out that the Typhoon was Italian, British, German and Spanish, and it has been a very successful programme. We are used to working with partners, including Italy, which is involved in this programme.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about article 50 export issues. I think his question is born out of a specific concern about German export licences, which we believe are resolvable. Time will tell. On a wider basis, we recognise that such an aircraft can only be truly successful if the market is greater than the UK, Italy and Japan.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the broader equipment plans, and he mentioned the £16.9 billion programme. There are a number of caveats. Of course, we have seen huge inflation, but at the other end we have also seen a big expansion of the amount of money that is going into our 10-year equipment programme. That number, which was a snapshot in time, was taken before the refresh and takes into account programmes that will and will not happen, so it is not quite as black and white as he presented.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about cost sharing on the programme. That is part of what the process of discussions both on the treaty and on the new GIGO organisation will ascertain. That is because the industrial capacity and capability of each of the three countries is important, as is the intellectual property that will be brought forward. That is part of what that organisation is currently establishing. It cannot be prejudged simply because we are likely to have greater industrial capacity in certain areas relative to other countries. The amount of project ownership will therefore fall on these factors: how much money goes in, the intellectual property and the industrial capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about RAG—red, amber, green—ratings. If I remember rightly—I will correct the record if I am wrong—one of the reasons for the red rating was about laying a treaty for the project. That is one of the reasons why we are laying the treaty for the project, and we will carry on systematically working through any other factors that could be slowing up the programme or causing the rating to be lower.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing for the treaty. I am pleased that there seems to be strong cross-party consensus on this. As he will know, passing such treaties in this House is not a particularly complex matter—the treaty will be laid before the House, and it will be a question for the business managers. In other countries—in Italy and particularly in the Diet in Japan—there is a rather more complicated process, so the time limiter is likely to be more on their side than on ours. They will be looking to lay the treaty at their end in the spring, and that is more likely to be the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timings overall. It is a compressed timetable, with a specific requirement for it to be in service for 2035, which comes from the Japanese side because of its aircraft replacement programme. Japan pressed the target, which we are fully signed up to, and there are a large number of milestones along the way, including a UK demonstrator aircraft, which will be very much sooner. I hope that that information is helpful. I am happy to write to him with any further detail and to take further questions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In welcoming this project for a long-term future aircraft, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the threat picture that will face it will in large measure depend on the outcome of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? Can he say anything to the House about the efforts that he and fellow NATO members are making to ensure that Ukraine has some current aircraft with which to defend itself, so as to improve the prospects that will face us when this future aircraft comes into being?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that air facilities and combat capabilities are essential to Ukraine, as we have seen. That is not just aircraft but unmanned vehicles of all types. That is why this aircraft—it will be known to some in the House as the Tempest, which was the name when we originally set off—will have the facility to fly unmanned. We know that Ukraine has chosen the F-16. We do not fly F-16s, but to persuade the world to give Ukraine aircraft, we offered the first training. That seemed to create a situation where other countries pitched in. We do, of course, help Ukraine in many other ways on unmanned aerial vehicles, some of which perhaps we will not go into here.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight his statement. The SNP welcomes this defence co-operation between responsible allies that will be taken forward. The Secretary of State rather brushed away the question from the Labour shadow Secretary of State about the £17 billion black hole in the defence equipment budget. Since the Secretary of State mentioned expansion, will he expand on that? Will he guarantee that other areas in defence spending are not to be sacrificed and that they will get the support that is required? When will he come to the House to detail how that support will be delivered? I will come back to that in a moment.
The Secretary of State talked about the additional market for this equipment. What concerns are there about Saudi Arabia joining the programme and the potential use of future combat aircraft in Yemen? What assessment has been made of the possibility of the programme increasing tensions with China and worsening the situation in the Taiwan strait?
Finally, I want to come back to finance. Can the Secretary of State detail how the UK will adhere to its treaty commitments if the shortfall in the MOD budget increases to £29 billion, as projected?
Grant Shapps
I should point out again that it is not a shortfall in the budget but a snapshot of a forecast done before the refresh.
Grant Shapps
It is not, simply for the reason that the projects in there may or may not go ahead. The largest increase in that budget was to do with the nuclear enterprise, which we all know the hon. Gentleman does not approve of in the first place because he does not want us to have that ultimate security of constant nuclear defence at sea. We are totally committed to that, and will make sure that it always exists.
The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about Saudi or any other country’s engagement. A programme of this nature is of great interest to many other nations. We receive constant inquiries. The Saudis have been partners with us in air combat for many decades—since Margaret Thatcher’s time at this Dispatch Box. We will see how their interest develops. He mentioned Yemen in relation to Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly, he completely failed to mention that Houthis from Yemen have been attacking ships, including the British ship HMS Diamond, which fired down one of their unmanned aerial vehicles this weekend.
The reality, as ever, is that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the global context. We will back our RAF to have sixth-generation aircraft capable of being the best in the world.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This is a really exciting announcement, and I congratulate the Defence Secretary. As we procure the sixth generation, we will become a leading nation in advancing air capability. Our world has turned a dark corner and has become more angry. It is right that we collaborate internationally—that is the way forward in upgrading our defence posture. He did not mention how many airframes he planned or hoped to build—perhaps that was deliberate. He did mention the F-35B. We originally wanted more than 130 of those, but we might be lucky to get half that. As has been said, the world will look very different in 2035, and we will need more F-35s. Can he confirm how many of those airframes will be procured? I do not apologise for saying this again and again: is it now time to increase our defence budget to 2.5%?
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. He is right that having a sixth-generation aircraft in our fleet will ensure that we keep ahead. He will know that Typhoons are at four and a half, and the F-35B is a very capable fifth-generation aircraft. Our current plan is to have 48 by 2025, and another 27 after that. For 2035, it is not possible right now to provide an exact number of a sixth-generation aircraft that is yet to be designed and built. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) pointed out, we do not know quite what the shape of air war will be at the time, particularly with drones, swarms and many other developments. We do know that air combat will continue to be vital in future, and that we will have the best form of air combat available through GCAP.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, delivered in his usual “never knowingly undersold” style. I welcome the treaty, but does he agree that if GCAP is to be successful, he must ensure that we have a vibrant manufacturing base in the UK? I do not know if he is aware or whether his officials have briefed him, but following the completion of the Qatari order at BAE Systems at Warton, there is no more manufacturing taking place at that site. What will he do to fill the gap between delivering the development phase of GCAP and the final aircraft?
Grant Shapps
It is worth pointing out that the Tempest programme, the UK side of GCAP, already employs 3,000 people in this country—I mentioned that £2 billion has been spent so far—and the right hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 1,000 of those are apprentices. He asks about a factory run by what is essentially a private business, or rather not Government, in BAE—
Grant Shapps
It is factually true to say that it is a private business. I was going to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question by saying that he will perhaps be aware that there is further interest in Typhoon around the world. I cannot go into specifics, but I very much hope that it is successful in winning that. As a Government, we will certainly be fully behind that.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I have the honour of being the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Japan. The GCAP treaty is a powerful testament to the very close and like-minded relationship between our two countries. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it would be helpful if Japan were to revise, carefully and sensibly, the three principles governing its defence technology exports, to allow GCAP to be most effective in today’s changed world?
Grant Shapps
Mr Speaker, they speak so highly of my right hon. Friend in Japan that I heard of little else while I was there last week. I am very grateful for his work in helping to ensure that the GCAP treaty came to the conclusion that it did last week. He asks about the three principles. They are not in Japanese law, but relate to its Cabinet, and they determine where and how things from the defence world can be exported. When I was in Japan last week, I made it very clear that, in no small part to help the programme to operate successfully, changes to the three principles were likely to be needed, in just the same way that, for AUKUS, Congress needs to make changes to allow exports to happen between the UK and Australia. It is a very similar situation in Tokyo and I did gently persuade my opposite number that that will need to be taken care of.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the treaty set out by the Secretary of State. One key problem with procuring new assets and equipment is that once it is specified, lots of changes come in further down the line and the costs shoot up. Given his discussions, has he set a date for when this asset will be specified? What safeguards has he put in place to ensure that it is not continually changed, therefore delaying the project further and adding extra costs?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that a huge amount of work has been done. On Thursday in Tokyo, we received yet another update from the industry consortium that has been working on the specifics of both the concept behind the joint venture and the different aspects of the aircraft’s performance. It is not yet known in detail exactly what those will be. The technology is so cutting edge that, as he knows, part of the programme is R&D. That will be an iterative programme.
The hon. Gentleman’s central point is absolutely right: the single greatest danger is mission creep that keeps adding on new facilities. One thing that we, as the UK, will be saying is, “Let’s get the aircraft flying and stable as a valuable asset, and then let it iterate or spiral over a period of time once it is in service.”
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the treaty and on forming a technological partnership with Italy and Japan to face some of the more difficult challenges in the world. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said that it is all very well to sign the treaty, but it is about the hard work and the skilled work. May I gently remind my right hon. Friend that Lancashire has the heritage, the skills, the apprentices and the site? Does he agree that the best place to put a new site would be next to the National Cyber Force centre in Lancashire, because of the mixture of skills that would come together beautifully?
Grant Shapps
As I corrected the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), London is not guaranteed as the headquarters, and I think the whole House heard my hon. Friend’s valuable pitch for Lancashire.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his positive statement—it is good to hear positivity at any time of the year, but more so at Christmas. It is great to hear of the proactive nature of this programme, and I thank the Secretary of State and his team for the hard work that they have done so far. I note that the north-east of England and Scotland are seeing jobs and engagement. Will the Secretary of State outline how this will enhance skills and labour throughout the United Kingdom and particularly in Northern Ireland, which has a skilled business workforce and industrial trades just waiting to be used? We are here for the Secretary of State’s use, if he will only give us a chance.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the skills that the programme will provide throughout the UK. I am reminded of Thales, in Northern Ireland, and of how important the Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon has been to the battle in Ukraine—pivotal, I am told, when I speak to my opposite number. I have no doubt that some of the great skills and brilliance from Northern Ireland will be part of GCAP.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Having been involved in some of the early discussions with Italy and Japan, I warmly welcome this treaty and congratulate my right hon. Friend—they are truly excellent partners. However, he is right in saying that if we are to maintain those manufacturing bases for decades to come, we will need export orders. May I encourage him from the outset not only to look at exports from the licensing point of view, but to look at the potential for export variants, which will allow us to export while also maintaining national security?
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend—a brilliant Minister for Defence Procurement in a former time—for what he has said. He is entirely right about exports. I do not think we can forget the significance of Japan’s engagement in the programme, and I congratulate him on his earlier work on this. For Japan, its involvement is a totemic shift from its settlement after the second world war. I think that over time it is countries that are democratic, that want freedom and that are on the side of people’s liberty and rights that will need to have this sixth-generation aircraft. As I said in my statement, we are living in a far more contested world, and one in which it is more important than it has been in any recent decade that we have the best capabilities, and those are what this will bring us.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is clearly very pleased with himself, which would presumably account for the unnecessary amount of levity following a statement that was actually very serious. I pay all tribute to Italy and Japan for signing the treaty—I would not trust a cheque that this Government had signed, much less an international treaty—but I suspect that they take their confidence from MBDA, from BAE Systems, from Rolls-Royce and from Leonardo, which are behind this project, unlike the UK Government, who are just signing it off. Does he agree that it is absolute testament that the beating heart and the brain of this platform comes from Leonardo’s facility in Edinburgh? Will he also redouble his efforts to bring Sweden inside this tent? We need Sweden for its industrial base and its technological know-how, and for further orders.
Grant Shapps
I do not think that anyone in the House would accuse the hon. Gentleman of undue levity and cheerfulness, although it is Christmas. None the less, I wish him well. Of course we want to ensure that all our defence companies succeed as a result of this, including those in Scotland—and who knows, that could be a location for the headquarters.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As a former serviceman and a former Defence Minister, I, too, welcome the treaty that the Secretary of State has announced. What worries me, though, and what worried me when I was a Defence Minister, is slippage, under previous Governments and under this Government. Can the Secretary of State assure us that no airframe will be taken out of service on the basis of something coming in in 2035? We need to keep what we have until this is available in the air.
Grant Shapps
The 2035 date is really the absolute backstop, as I mentioned before, and not just for us but for our Japanese partners, who have a specific issue with their previous airframe coming out of service at that time. That is, as it were, our guiding light. As for the way in which the Royal Air Force itself decides to operate its airframes in the meantime, that is in no small part a question of what happens with technology during this period. As I also mentioned, over the last nearly two years in Ukraine we have seen the development of air combat at a speed that would have seemed impossible to us before the Ukraine war, so I would not want to pre-empt it entirely, while still supporting my right hon. Friend’s principle that we should ensure that we have sufficient airframes operational and in the sky at all times—which, as the Typhoons and the F-35Bs remind us, is so very important.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The GCAP is a prestigious project that will offer careers and high-skilled roles to people across the global supply chain for decades. Will my right hon. Friend commit to keeping up the work of the armed forces in their support for technical education in our schools and colleges, which is critical to making these projects a big success?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely will commit to doing that. My hon. Friend is right to highlight it. I am in conversation with my Cabinet colleagues about how we can maximise the amount of skills, not least because we need them for this programme. It is a matter of great pride that there are already 1,000 apprenticeships involved in the UK side of this.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As the world becomes a more dangerous place, I very much welcome this statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the global combat air programme is another demonstration of this Government’s commitment to Indo-Pacific security?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, not only about GCAP today but about AUKUS. I think that, five years ago, people would have been surprised to find that we had signed a global arrangement with Australia and America for nuclear powered subs and pillar 2 for AUKUS, and I think they would now be surprised to discover that we are bringing in a treaty to allow for joint aircraft production and research and development with Japan. This is all a sign of our commitment to the Indo-Pacific and to making sure that the waterways and skies around the world remain free and open for commerce and for every country to use.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome this treaty and project, which will bring the GCAP alongside AUKUS and the five power defence arrangements at the heart of our Indo-Pacific defence partnerships. Could the Secretary of State confirm that this will also secure the future of the supply chain behind Typhoon and Eurofighter, including the landing gear and avionics from Gloucestershire? By the way, Gloucestershire airport would make an outstanding choice for project headquarters. I make a declaration of interest here: will he also confirm that he will be deploying the Prime Minister’s Indo-Pacific-focused trade envoys to ensure that other nations in the region are aware of the opportunities that this offers? That would also bring us greater air compatibility.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the supply chain. There is a strong read-across between the 4.5 version of the Typhoon and the GCAP, so it will be important for our defence supply chain, particularly when it comes to combat aircraft. I note his pitch for a potential HQ, and I also want to thank him publicly for his work in south-east Asia, where he does a tremendous job as one of the trade envoys.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I join others in welcoming this treaty, not just in the defence sense but for the benefits it could bring to the south-west region. In the light of recent incidents with North Korea and the rising threat of China, can my right hon. Friend say a bit more about how he sees this as part of our genuine commitment to stand with our allies if they come under threat?
Grant Shapps
We have a choice as a nation, as indeed does the world: we see a much more aggressive Russia invading its neighbour; we see China looking threateningly towards its neighbours; and it is important to understand the dynamics of North Korea, of Iran and of what is happening in the middle east. We are undoubtedly living in a more contested and more dangerous world, and preparing now for the sixth-generation fighter combat aircraft is therefore more important than ever. This Government are entirely committed to securing our future and that of the global order of the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As somebody who represents Samlesbury in the Ribble Valley, may I give him advance notice that I shall be knocking on his door shortly?
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry. I made clear my intention to do so at Cabinet Office questions on 23 November, and the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), reiterated this on the Floor of the House on 4 December.
First, and most importantly, the suffering of the victims must be recognised. The distress and trauma that each individual has faced as a result of this tragedy is unimaginable, and the Government understand that no measures can fully compensate for the losses and hardships that they have suffered. The priority here must be to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve.
With the interim compensation payments issued last October, the Government recognised the immediate and urgent needs of those most severely impacted. This was the start of the process, not the end. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation, and I am fully committed to ensuring that we bring this matter to its long-awaited conclusion.
In April 2023, the Government welcomed the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, which set out a detailed framework for compensation for both those infected and those affected by infected blood, and it is a significant step towards the culmination of the inquiry’s deeply important work.
The inquiry has taken a wide-ranging and innovative approach to compensation, and I was pleased to see that the Government’s commissioning of Sir Robert Francis KC’s compensation study assisted in the inquiry’s work. It is now a year on from the Government’s acceptance of the moral case for compensation, and I understand the calls for urgency. I know that, from many of those infected and affected, there is anger and frustration with the Government’s response so far.
The inquiry’s recommendations are not without complexity, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to prejudge the findings of the final report. For these reasons, the Government are not yet in a position to share any final decisions on compensation. However, Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that we must do right by the victims, and the Government recognise this. I am personally committed to making sure that we do that.
I also give enormous credit to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on her continuing hard work to advocate for the victims of the infected blood scandal. The Government recognise the strength of feeling across the House on this matter and the importance of what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The Government are working through the implications of the amendment. Cabinet Office officials worked hard under my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), to develop this policy, and we are reviewing this work in the light of the amendment made two weeks ago today.
I am also pleased to provide the House with an update on the wider progress we have made in this area, and on the steps we are taking to address the concerns of this House. First, I announce that the Department of Health and Social Care will fully implement a bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products, delivered by NHS England. Our intention is for this service to go live in early summer 2024. We recognise the harrowing impacts of the infected blood scandal and the psychological impact this has had on many infected and affected individuals. This announcement is an important step for victims in England. The service will provide tailored support to meet the unique needs of infected and affected individuals.
The Government are also urgently appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations early in the new year, which will ensure that the Government have the relevant expertise to make informed choices in responding to the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation.
Finally, I reiterate the commitment that the Government will seek to provide an update to Parliament on next steps through an oral statement within 25 sitting days of the inquiry’s final report being published. As my predecessor made clear both to this House and to the inquiry, there are a number of technical issues that must be considered as they will have a significant impact on public finances. It is important that any decisions on compensation funding are taken carefully, and the House should expect the Government to work through the associated costs to the public sector while, at all times, considering the needs of the community and the far-reaching impact that this scandal has had on their lives.
The victims of the infected blood scandal deserve justice and recognition. Their voice must be heard, and it is our duty to honour not only those still living and campaigning but those who have passed without recognition. This is my highest priority, and I will continue to progress this work with all the urgency it deserves. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that this statement has been made, to which the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice committed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month. I am also grateful to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement today.
The amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill passed by this House makes the will of this House, on a binding and cross-party basis, absolutely clear. I applaud the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the campaigning and advocacy organisations, the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, the journalist Caroline Wheeler and all who have worked tirelessly to bring us to this point. I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of the victims of this scandal, who, over decades, have suffered for far too long.
The Government have repeatedly accepted the moral case for compensation, as indeed the Minister did today. On Report, the Minister of State in the MOJ was also definitive in committing that the Government will
“put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood to be established, in line with the overall objectives set out”—[Official Report, 4 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 136-37.]
in the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend. I say to the Minister: there is no need to wait for the Bill to come back or for the inquiry to publish its final report before making the required urgent progress on setting up the basis for the compensation scheme. The Government should make good on the spirit of that commitment and recognise the will of the House, not least because a commitment to act was also given in the King’s Speech.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this is not a complex matter. However, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and I have repeatedly made clear, we are open to working on a cross-party basis to shape a compensation scheme that can deliver justice urgently. The Government should now establish an arm’s length body to deliver compensation payments, which will allow some of the preparatory work to be done while we wait for those final recommendations. As with any arm’s length body, the Government will be responsible for appointing the chair and the members, and setting the budget and the rules for the scheme and its administration, including on decision making and accountability. I am also conscious that compensation will apply to those infected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that there is important work to do with devolved Governments. Of course, I welcome what the Minister said in his statement about psychological support, but will he please tell us why there is a need to wait until the summer of next year for it to go live, given how long this matter has been going on?
I would be grateful if the Minister would also address the following questions. Why can the Government not commit to beginning the steps in January, not just to take the technical advice that he has referred to, but to bring forward primary legislation early in the new year to enable the establishment of the compensation scheme, given that this House has shown its support for that? Will he also commit to continuing to work closely with all the victims’ groups in the future, so that their voice is heard throughout the establishment of the compensation scheme? To the extent that he has announced a timetable today, when might people receive the final compensation? This is so pressing because, on average, one person dies every four days as a result of this scandal. Will he also give a commitment that the Government will act on each and every recommendation in the inquiry’s report? He mentioned a statement 25 working days after the publication of that report, but he did not give a timetable for action on those recommendations—will he give that to the House in his response? Finally, will he confirm what preparatory work is being done by the Treasury? Will he commit to being as transparent as possible about that process? The Government have admitted both the case for compensation and the need for urgency. This House has shown strong cross-party support for action. It now falls to Ministers to deliver urgently.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach. There is consensus across the House that this urgent matter needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. As I said at Cabinet Office questions during my second week in post, this is the most urgent priority that I will face, whatever happens in this office, and I take my responsibility to bring forward the scheme very seriously. However, we need to examine carefully the amendment that was passed two weeks ago and how it interacts with work that is under way. I am doing everything I can to bring that work forward. Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill will happen today in the other place and the process that will follow from that will be clear in the new year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. I want to deliver psychological support as quickly as possible, working closely with NHS England on provision of support and allowing people to have direct access to it. I will do everything I can to bring that forward by June, at the latest, I hope. A few months ago, I made an announcement about clinical, legal and social care advisers. Contact has been made with individuals and there will be ongoing conversations to get those people in place as early as possible, so as much work as possible can be done along the lines I have set out.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 18 recommendations and when people will receive further clarification on Government compensation. Those are substantive matters that will be attended to as quickly as possible, in line with what I have already said. On 17 January, the inquiry will issue a notification about when that report is expected, which will give clarity on the timetable to which we are working. I assure the House that we are doing everything we can to work across relevant Departments, including the Treasury, to ensure everything is delivered as quickly as possible.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you realise that after I have asked my question, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and another Conservative Member have asked their questions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) will be the definitive person to put to Government what needs to be done.
I say to the Minister and, through him, to our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), the Minister’s predecessor, that we are not doing enough, fast enough. How many months have passed since Sir Robert Francis produced his report? I hope the Minister will confirm that it is about 20 months. How many months have passed since Sir Brian Langstaff produced his final recommendations on compensation? It is about eight months. Those are the relevant issues.
The fact that the Government will act 25 working days after Sir Brian’s final report comes out next year does not deal with the issue of what the affected and infected need and should get now. If it is a question of money, how much and the cashflow for the Government, they should say so now. There is nothing that can be said on compensation 25 days after the report comes out that could not be said now, so please will the Minister say it?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I could not agree with him more about the level of urgency that is attached to the Government’s response. He is right about the publication dates; I think the whole House is aware of that. In the past five weeks, I have taken concrete steps, building on the work of my predecessor, to take the actions necessary to make those decisions as quickly as possible along the timescale I have set out. I cannot reiterate enough the Government’s commitment to dealing with the issue as quickly as possible, and I am doing all I can to gain consensus across Government to move things forward as quickly as possible.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Most of what we have heard today is not new. All we are hearing from this Government are the same old delays, while those affected continue to feel let down and failed. The Government have been working at a snail’s pace on the issue and were shamed when they voted against a new compensation body for those impacted by the scandal. Those affected and the bereaved will not forgive them for that callous act and the ongoing delays, and today they will have those feelings all over again at this non-statement.
On 5 April, Sir Brian Langstaff published his final recommendations relating to compensation. Crucially, he recommended that interim payments be made to bereaved parents and children in respect of deaths as yet unrecognised. To date, the Government have not responded in practical terms to any of those recommendations. The Government’s position continues to be to wait for the full report expected next spring before considering whether to extend the compensation. That heaps insult upon injury to those affected and their families, as every four days another victim of this scandal dies. Time is of the essence for those affected. To delay this full compensation is to stand against justice and all that is morally and ethically right. To delay compensation to those who are literally running out of time is cruel and unnecessary. This Government need to rethink and listen to the will of this House, as expressed on 4 December in the face of shameful opposition from those on the Government Benches, and deliver justice and full compensation.
Where is the urgency? The Minister has used the words “urgency” and “urgent” several times today, but it does not feel to those who are affected that there is any urgency from the Government to address the great wrongs and losses that they have suffered.
Today, given the expressed will of this House, we were hoping for a timeline from the Government for when a full compensation body would be established and operational. Again, sadly, all we have is delay and obfuscation. Does the Minister feel no shame in coming here today to give a statement that says nothing?
John Glen
I do not accept that characterisation of what I have said today, as I have made a number of specific announcements on the progress that is being made. Neither do I accept the characterisation of the Government’s position as a callous act. This Government launched a public inquiry, and last year we made interim payments. I accept that a substantive response cannot happen soon enough, but I am doing everything I can, working with colleagues across Government, to look at the best way of delivering as quickly as possible, and I will continue to do so.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Minister for what is now our traditional end-of-term statement on this subject, but, to be clear, this is one festive tradition that we need to see the back of, because people are dying without seeing justice. May I return the Paymaster General to a line in his statement where he talked about “clinical, legal and social care experts” to advise him on detailed technical considerations in the new year? Can he clarify when in the new year, because, clearly, that could cover 12 months of 2024. Moreover, further to the points made by the shadow Minister, how much can the Government do now to pave the way for serious progress and payment when the Government and the Treasury are in the position to move?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have been in discussions on the appointment of clinical, legal and social care experts since my first week in office in November. We have identified individuals, and communicated with them last week. We want to get them on board with this work in the early days of the new year, so that that work can happen as quickly as possible. I wanted to avoid a situation where people were going out to compete for roles. What we want is the best people across those specialisms so that this work can make urgent progress, aligned with our intention to respond substantively later in the year.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In April 2023, Sir Brian Langstaff said:
“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year.”
What exactly does the Minister not understand in that statement? This statement today will cause huge anguish to victims of the 50-year-old scandal and, in noting that the Prime Minister whipped Conservative Members to vote down the new clause on 4 December, fuel their suspicion that the Government are still playing for time, even though they accept the moral case. This therefore is adding one final insult to injury. Will the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister can find what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday is unlimited funding for the Rwanda policy, but is still pushing back, after a five-year public inquiry, against compensation—and even interim compensation for the groups that have never received anything—for people who have suffered so much for so long after what the state did to them?
John Glen
I recognise the right hon. Lady’s frustration and disappointment with where we have got to. The work that she has done, and the work that was expressed in the amendment, is urgently being examined by me and my officials.
John Glen
I recognise Sir Brian’s recommendations, and I have done what I can to move us to a place where we meet the expectations as quickly as possible in the new year. I said to the right hon. Lady when I met her and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that my officials were engaged in looking at the options for the delivery vehicle. I must now examine how that operates with the legislative vehicle, which has been amended by the House. I will do everything that I can to update the House as quickly as I can.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I have some sympathy for the Minister, who I suspect might go slightly further in his comments if he had complete free rein at the Dispatch Box. I have experience of dealing with the Windrush compensation scheme, which similarly looked back decades at the impact on individuals, with records often incomplete and people having moved many times, and it brought home the complexity of this type of compensation scheme, even when it gets to work. What is his timeline for people to start dealing with these cases, because that will be the first step in getting compensation finally paid to people who, as we have touched on, we are losing literally every day?
John Glen
That is what the experts will do—the calibration of tariffs and allocation of compensation, as per the excellent work that has been done by the inquiries. This is urgent, and work will begin in the new year on that aspect. As I said, on the legislative vehicle to establish the necessary mechanisms, that process is under way as well.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has referred many times to urgency. I think that he is a good man, and I know that he will be trying to do his best, but I had a message this afternoon from the organisation Factor 8, which said:
“Today, one of our members has died. He was infected with Hepatitis C through infected Factor VIII blood products. Two weeks ago, he was diagnosed with cancer (caused by his Hepatitis C) and now has died without seeing justice. These stories are sadly familiar within our community.”
That is the reality for so many people who have been affected, including my own constituents; I spoke to them years ago and was convinced of their case for justice. Who else is holding this up elsewhere in the Government?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes the right point, which we have all heard from our constituents; my constituents have made representations along those lines, too. All I can say is that there is nothing stopping me moving this forward. I am doing everything that I can to put in place the legislative mechanisms to set up the process and ensure that, when the Government respond, the response is as comprehensive as it can be. I acknowledge the distress caused to so many people. I will do everything that I can to bring this forward as quickly as I can.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Two weeks ago, I met a gentleman called Barry. Barry had been a constituent of a former Member of this place, Alistair Burt, in North East Bedfordshire. Barry spoke to me of how hard Alistair had worked, alongside the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but of course Alistair Burt left this place before we ever found a resolution to the scandal. Can I ask my right hon. Friend, who I believe is going to do his best, whether we will see compensation before any more of us leave this place?
John Glen
My right hon. Friend is ingenious in her question, but I go back to what I said: I will do everything I can to put in place all the elements to allow us to respond substantively. We will know the date of the report, I believe, on 17 January, so we will have a definitive timetable in the new year. I recognise that she, Alistair Burt and many others across the House have campaigned on this issue for many years and I am determined to bring it to the conclusion that the House expects.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members present, I have a number of constituents who were infected with HIV or hepatitis C through the scandal and several have lost family members. I want to echo what some of them are feeling. One of my constituents described her parent’s diagnosis with HIV due to infected blood as
“a catalogue of soul destroying, humiliating neglect and ultimately alienating experiences”
and told me that it is now 30 years since her parent died,
“and the intense sense of loss and pain remains profound and is felt every single day.”
People infected and affected need tangible action now to help to alleviate that suffering. The question the Minister has to answer is when he will establish a full compensation body and when that will become operational.
John Glen
I am obviously going to have to repeat myself several times. I have set out clearly what is new today: the psychological support and the appointment of the necessary expert, in a matter of days, to take forward the work needed to get to the point where a comprehensive response can happen. We have committed to when the timetable will happen with respect to the final inquiry, and we are doing everything we can to reach that. While I recognise that that is a matter of three or four months further down the road, I am trying to make sure that, when the response comes, it is as comprehensive as it possibly can be, addressing all the dimensions of the misery that the hon. Lady movingly spoke about.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
When the House debated the amendment by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) a couple of weeks ago, I gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and abstained. If I could turn the clock back, based on what I have heard today I would now want to vote for that amendment. In a couple of weeks I have a constituent coming to see me who is a family member of one of the victims. I am afraid that if I showed her this statement, she would immediately point out things such as “summer 2024” and say, “That is just too long.” Can the Minister give me some assurance that, by the time I see that lady, there will be a little bit more certainty?
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and I will happily talk to him privately. I am sorry that he draws that conclusion from what I have said today. In the past 35 days I have done everything I can to move the scheme forward, and I wanted to make an oral statement before the House rose for the recess. I recognise that there is a lot more that could be said, but a lot more needs to be done before we get to that point. The reference to June is to do with the psychological support. The comprehensive response that the Government have committed to will come at a defined moment after the publication of the final report, the date of which we will clarify on 17 January—it will be some time after the report’s publication in March.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Thousands of people across the country have been affected by this scandal, and constituents who have been in touch with me describe their quest for justice as “upsetting”, “frustrating” and “depressing”. The Haemophilia Society said after the recent vote on the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that the Prime Minister “should be ashamed” that he had been forced to do the right thing. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and will he apologise to those affected for the excessive delays in delivering compensation to victims?
John Glen
I reaffirm what I have said about my commitment to doing this as quickly as possible. Of course I regret the delays that have occurred over many years, and I want this to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as it can be. I think I neglected to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) about working with the various victims’ groups, of which there are a large number. I undertake to work with them to give them as much clarity as possible about the timetable and the work that I am undertaking.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Government be making these payments within their own lifetime?
John Glen
I will give a comprehensive response along the timetable that I set out earlier.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and to the journalist Caroline Wheeler for their tireless campaigning on this issue.
I think we all know, as we have heard in a couple of questions from Conservative Members, why the Government have tried to delay compensation for so long; they are clearly hoping that it will be another Government’s problem. Perhaps the Minister can help me to understand. He says that he recognises the
“distress and trauma that each individual has faced,”
so why has it taken until today to announce a bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products, and why will it take until the summer to set up that service?
John Glen
The timing of the delivery of that service has been worked through with NHS England. I signed off the funding for it when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am pleased that we can announce it today. I wish that it could have been sooner, but we are where we are, and I am pleased that we have made some progress. As with all these matters, of course I wish that I could accelerate it, but I have to work through all the deliberate steps needed to get the legislation in the right place to ensure that we can answer all the questions that so many people have—I recognise they have waited too long.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his assurance that the scheme will cover the infected and affected. I have mentioned my constituent David Corroyer in this Chamber before. He contacted hepatitis C in the ’70s—over 40 years ago—not from a transfusion but from donating blood, as a needle was used multiple times. He gave evidence to the inquiry but is still waiting to hear whether his particular circumstances will be covered. Can the Minister help him?
John Glen
I do not think that I can be expected to respond to individual cases here, but I have ensured that we have the right range of professional expertise—the very best available in this country—so that all those different cases of infected and affected, going off quite a range of experiences over a very long period, are properly interrogated as the details of the scheme are worked through.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Government had to make this statement after losing the vote two weeks ago, but there is little in it for families like the Smiths, who—please know this, Minister—finally saw hope in that vote. Campaigners have called for months and months for the preparatory work to be done. How long will victims now have to wait for what the House has asked for?
John Glen
As I said, it will be 25 sittings days after the publication of the report. That is when the Government’s comprehensive reply will be given.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
From 2006 to 2010, I was a shadow public health spokesman on the Opposition Benches. I committed a future Conservative Government to compensating. That was easy to do in opposition, but I accept that it is much more difficult in government. I trust the Minister, but I know that a lot of people are sceptical. We need to build back trust by saying that we will compensate both those infected and those affected, because those families need the money—they needed it years ago. It is not just this Government who have been slow; previous Governments have been slow, too. This needs to be resolved now. We need to rebuild trust; I am sorry, but it is lacking.
John Glen
My right hon. Friend makes wise and fair observations. This is complex, but it is urgent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) did an enormous amount of work in getting us to today’s statement and to a lot more, which will come to fruition as quickly as possible. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) is absolutely right: this scandal has lasted almost two generations, and I am determined to do everything I can to bring it to a conclusion.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The one tradition that has been upheld today is that of the Paymaster General coming to the House to make a statement that says nothing. He is the ninth Paymaster General since the inquiry was announced, and they keep saying nothing. In the past fortnight alone, he has had to face oral questions and has been defeated in the voting Lobbies, and the Prime Minister was asked a question about this on Wednesday, but we are still no nearer where we need to be. This is a cruel, cruel tease, is it not?
John Glen
I am sorry, but I do not accept that characterisation. What I would say is that, as I think the hon. Member appreciates, there are deeply complex matters in relation to how to allocate funds in the right way and create the most effective and reliable way to honour the recommendations and deal with this comprehensively, and I am doing everything I can to make sure that is achieved.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
All of us here are unhappy about the fact that this has taken so long—the events actually took place up to 40 years ago—but, my right hon. Friend has reacted very strongly to the conversations I and others have had with him since the original statement. What he has outlined today about the final report, the bespoke psychological service and some technical issues, followed by serious announcements for those of our constituents who have suffered or had partners who have since died, and the personal commitment he has given to resolving this during 2024, are useful steps forward. I am grateful to him for making this statement before the Christmas recess.
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said at business questions last Thursday that she did not want a written statement on the last day. I do not think that having an oral statement on the penultimate day is that much better, but I was determined to at least address that concern. What I will commit to is doing as much as I can to update the House as early as possible. That commitment is there, and obviously we have Cabinet Office questions early in the new year—the day after the announcement of the date—and I will, I hope, be able to say more then.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Sir Brian Langstaff came up with the recommendations that he did because he recognised that people were dying without getting justice. The amendment that was passed in this House two weeks ago, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), was Sir Brian’s recommendation word for word. The Minister has come to the Dispatch Box sounding as though he has only just started work on this, and that there was no work done by his nine predecessors. Has he met Sir Brian Langstaff, and what does Sir Brian Langstaff say to him about this constant delay in paying compensation?
John Glen
I have not met Sir Brian Langstaff yet, but of course I build on the work that my predecessors have done. As I indicated to the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group, as soon as I was in office I set up a meeting and I was aware of the ongoing work. I now have to work out the interaction of that amendment with the work that exists and bring forward a substantial response to it.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
This is a disappointing statement in some ways, but let me give the Paymaster General an opportunity to build trust and confidence. It is unclear in his statement whether the Government accept the principle of an independent compensation body—an arm’s length body—so can he confirm that that is the case? Does he accept that, for the victims and their families, that is a prerequisite for building trust and confidence, and that they will not accept a Government Department involved in this scandal administering the compensation scheme?
John Glen
I am very cognisant of the 18 recommendations, and the sensitivity about the trust needed in the delivery mechanism, whatever that is. That is one of several considerations on which we need to reach the right conclusion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, I recognise that restoring trust is a serious matter on which we have to deliver.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
My constituent Eileen lost her father in the infected blood scandal. She told me earlier this year:
“This lack of transparency is causing great stress and anxiety to those of us at the heart of this NHS treatment disaster, who have already waited decades for our loss and suffering to be recognised.”
When the Government committed to a statement before Christmas, there was an expectation that there would have been further progress on the compensation scheme, and I do not think that was an unreasonable assumption. In the absence of that, what assurances can I give Eileen and her family that she will be recognised by this Government and that she will be compensated?
John Glen
Today we are putting in place the expertise needed to deal with the recommendations and look at the distribution for compensation. The Government are committed to responding after those 25 sitting days from the day that the report is published, the date of which will be known on 17 January. What I have announced today is a milestone on that journey, and we are in that last lap as we get towards the day when the Government will respond substantively.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My constituent lost her brother and her sister-in-law, and her nephew was orphaned at a young age. Her mother, a pensioner, was left to raise her nephew. The family has not received a penny, and her nephew is in dire need of support. As everybody has said, this is already too late, so I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that something is done sooner rather than later. Will he explain exactly what new legislation he needs to bring in?
John Glen
Some ex gratia payments have been made since 1992, but I recognise that a large number of people have been excluded in different ways. The work that will be undertaken and the experts who have been appointed will be designed to ensure that the fairest settlement is made, taking full account of the inquiry’s recommendations. I cannot offer any specific assurances to the hon. Lady or her constituents, but I will be doing everything I can to bring this forward as quickly as I can.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
My constituent Michael, and so many more, will be disappointed by today’s statement. The Minister rightfully spoke about urgency, yet there is no timeline that reflects that urgency. People still do not know when the independent compensation body will be set up, or when they will ultimately get justice, and get that compensation to victims of this infected blood scandal.
John Glen
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment and that of many in the House today. I shall reflect carefully on that, and do everything I can to do better next time. The steps we are taking, deliberately and carefully, to work through what is required to make a substantive response after the publication of that final report in March, are serious. I will be having meetings over Christmas and early in the new year, week by week, to work through what is required to deliver on the Government’s commitment.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Speaking about last, I could sort of reference some of the things the Minister has referred to—well, if only I could. I only wish I was able to, and could talk of complex matters. The victims want to hear a clear timeline for when final compensation payments will be made. They want to see the urgency that the Minister talked about. There is a view that the Government are trying to kick this issue into the next Parliament, and that the Treasury is dragging its heels. The Minister has been asked this a couple of times: will he confirm that this issue will be all resolved before this Parliament is dissolved?
John Glen
That is my expectation. I am doing everything I can to bring this to a substantial conclusion after the publication of the final report. I am speaking to colleagues in many Departments, and working with officials across Government to get to the end point that I have set out several times this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I know he is an honourable gentleman, and his commitment will be to deliver what we wish to see. I also thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the amendment that she tabled and won in this House by four votes. Those four votes were enough to show the mind of this Parliament, and where we want to be. During the last topical questions to the Cabinet Office, I asked the Paymaster General whether he had the figures for those who have sadly passed away this year, before compensation had been made available to them. The Minister committed to confirming those numbers so, two weeks later and with no reply, has he been able to access the figures I asked for, as we approach the rise of the House for Christmas 2023?
John Glen
I am not aware whether those figures are available yet, but I will ensure that the moment I leave this Chamber, I will do everything I can to get the hon. Member a response on that. If I cannot give them, I will let him know why.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for 45 minutes.
Tackling Spiking
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
With permission, I will make a statement about the Government’s action to tackle spiking. Spiking is an insidious act with potentially life-threatening consequences. We know it constitutes a danger to people, particularly women, in nightclubs, bars, on student campuses, at festivals or in any social setting. No one should have to worry that a substance has been put into their drink or that they could be targeted with a needle. More than 5,000 cases were reported last year, and that is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg.
These offences have potentially devastating effects. First, there are the immediate physical effects, which can include struggling to speak or to stand up, loss of consciousness and hospitalisation, to name just a few. Secondly, there is the psychological trauma, which can manifest itself in a number of ways, including anxiety or, most acutely, shame about what happened and what may have ensued. The impact can last for months, years or a lifetime. Some will be victims of secondary offending, which they may struggle to recall, that may well be of a sexual nature. Thames Valley police told the Home Secretary and me just last Friday that spiking is the hallmark of the sexual predator. Anyone who has read the harrowing accounts of victims will understand why it is vital that we crack down on these crimes. We owe it to all of them to redouble our efforts, and that is precisely what this Government are doing.
As Members will be aware, the Government were required, under section 71 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to produce a report on the nature and prevalence of spiking and the action we intend to take. Publication has been delayed, and I understand why the hold-up has been a source of frustration, but that delay has enabled the Home Secretary and I—both new in post—to take a step back and consider how best we can focus our efforts to address this crime.
We want the law to be crystal clear and for individuals to have no doubt as to their rights and remedies. We have concluded that there is a case for a legislative change to capture the modern and insidious nature of this crime. I can therefore confirm to the House that the Government intend to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that modernise the language of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This will remove any ambiguity and make it clear that the offence covers spiking in every form, be that via food or drink, vape or by needle. We hope that this step will improve public awareness but, most importantly, encourage victims to come forward.
I will add two points. It has been said, and we of course accept, that the existing laws already cover the range of behaviours that incorporate spiking. While it is not in dispute that that is the case, we recognise that some of the existing offences on which we rely are not readily seen to cover spiking. We give the illustration of sections 22 to 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which use the language of poisoning for nefarious purposes, which we believe we can clarify through this change.
By their very nature, spiking cases are complex. The work we have done tells us that there are particular challenges in identifying perpetrators and gathering evidence. To bolster our legislative plans, we have developed a package of practical measures to improve public safety. The police have already developed a rapid, lab-based urine testing capability, but we want to go further. First, the Home Office will be funding efforts to research the capability and reliability of existing rapid drink testing kits. There are never any guarantees with this sort of work, and we are only at the beginning, but to understand what is possible, we have to gather evidence on testing efficacy, and that is what we will be doing in the months ahead.
Secondly, additional funding will be provided to the police to run several spiking “intensification weeks”, which we have seen successfully deployed for other types of criminality, including county lines and knife crime. Thirdly, the Security Industry Authority, the regulator of the UK’s private security industry, has committed to introduce spiking training for door supervisors as part of its existing licence-linked qualifications. This will enable them to better and more quickly identify victims onsite.
Fourthly, we will support the police to roll out their spiking reporting and advice tool, to improve the quality of data. This enables the public to report cases of spiking quickly and simply, including anonymously if they so wish. It has been successfully rolled out across 20 forces as part of a pilot programme in England and Wales, and will be expanded to the remaining 23 forces shortly. Several other measures are detailed in the statutory report, but I am conscious of the time, so I will simply add that the report is available on the gov.uk website and emphasise that we are strengthening our response across the board.
Before I conclude, I take this opportunity to urge the public to remain vigilant, particularly over Christmas. If anybody believes that they or someone around them has been spiked, they should report the incident to the venue and the police. I also want to offer my thanks to the campaign group Stamp Out Spiking and Members on both sides of the House. I will not mention them all, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who have campaigned so assiduously on this issue. Their insight and commitment have been instrumental, and they will no doubt continue to provide support and scrutiny as our work progresses.
Spiking is an appalling, predatory crime that ruins lives. As we have shown time and again, this Government will do everything in their power to protect the public and reduce violence against women. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Once again, I welcome her to her role. She has been a long-standing advocate for action on tackling violence against women and girls, and I am confident that there will be opportunities to work together to make progress on these incredibly important issues.
Let us be clear: Labour completely welcomes today’s announcement on spiking, although action to crack down on this dangerous and devastating crime is long overdue. The scale of the problem, as the Minister well knows, is vast. As the Government’s own report makes clear, between May 2022 and April 2023 the police received 6,732 reports of spiking. Of those, just four—0.05%—resulted in a charge. On average, we had 561 reports a month, with the majority coming from females who believe their drink was spiked, although spiking can affect anyone. Some 957 of the more than 6,000 reports included needle spiking.
Spiking is a dangerous and invasive crime that creates both immediate physical danger for victims and long-term psychological impacts. The words in the statement are all well and good, and the Minister knows she has my full support, but we must also recognise that this Government’s record on issues relating to violence against women and girls has been one of dither and delay. Stronger action is always welcome, but why has it taken the Government so long to act? The Home Affairs Committee published its report on spiking in April 2022, which is more than a year and a half ago.
Labour has repeatedly called for action on spiking, including the creation of a stand-alone criminal offence that would make it easier to prosecute, easier to raise awareness, and easier for people to come forward to report what has happened and point to crystal-clear breaches of the law. There has been years of campaigning and advocacy about the epidemic of spiking here in the UK but, once again, the Government have sadly dragged their feet. Since the Select Committee published its report, there have been two freshers weeks, two years of festive parties and two years of music festivals. During that period, more victims have been left vulnerable to this awful crime.
Where is the urgency when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls? The Government’s response has been pitifully slow. The report published by the Government today on the nature and prevalence of spiking, which is required as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, was originally due to be published on 28 April—nine months ago—but has been delayed time and again. That simply is not good enough. In the months of delay, dangerous criminals will have been let off, and victims have been consistently let down.
While it is positive that the Government are now bringing forward legislative changes to create more clarity about the criminality of spiking, it has taken too long for them to accept the significance of the problem. Last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee that poor data quality and the absence of a clear criminal offence presented a challenge in policing spiking. It said:
“A more defined standalone offence of spiking would help understand the scale of the problem”
and
“enable a far more accurate picture to be realised”
than through the current approach. Chief constables told the Committee that a defined offence for spiking would also allow enhanced support for victims, but last December, in response to the Committee’s report, the then safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), said
“we have concluded that there is no gap in the existing law which a new offence would fill”
and that introducing a new specific spiking offence
“would not increase the likelihood of charging or prosecuting an offender for spiking offences.”
Yet we now understand that there will be legislative amendments to update and modernise existing offences to make the offence explicit and capture the modern-day nature of the threat. The Minister has acknowledged:
“Whilst the offence is nominally covered by existing laws, this comprises a patchwork of different laws—some now well over a hundred years old—which were drafted to cover other kinds of offending.”
That is a clear admission that the current legal framework is not fit for purpose, but it has taken the Government more than 18 months to accept and put forward changes to rectify that.
The Minister has made a personal commitment in her new role to go further than her predecessors, and I commend her for that, but Labour remains concerned that these tweaks to existing laws will fall short of doing the right thing of creating a stand-alone spiking offence. We fear that the Government’s approach simply will not go far enough and will not provide the clarity and focus required for all involved. That being said, we will eagerly await the detail of any amendments and will scrutinise the proposed legislative changes in Committee.
The Government are right to say in their report that night-time economy venues are areas of opportunity for safeguarding and prosecutorial support, and that the early collection of evidence, identification of perpetrators and the ability to support customers are key. There is no doubt that as well as getting the criminal justice system to take spiking more seriously, we need much more prevention work in clubs, bars and pubs and joint working between premises and the police to catch perpetrators. The Government’s new training plan sounds like a step in the right direction, but we are concerned about the small scale of the new programme. The announcement talks about training hundreds more door staff, but we know that there are tens of thousands of venues up and down the UK where these crimes are being committed regularly. How on earth does the Minister expect even to scratch the surface of the issue with those numbers?
We urgently need to see more detail to understand how impactful the changes will be. For example, can the Minister set out exactly how the new training will work, including how many venues will receive training, whether it will be voluntary or mandatory, and what happens if venues fail to engage or repeatedly ignore spiking incidents at their premises? We need a robust and comprehensive approach across the country; this should not be opt-in. We also need a proper national strategy for dealing with this abhorrent crime, which would include looking at the licensing arrangements for late-night venues where these crimes take place.
Tackling spiking at its root is a huge challenge. The Government have had 13 years to get it right, but the simple truth is that the Tories have been too focused on their own in-fighting rather than tackling issues such as spiking, which pose a genuine risk to women up and down the country. I urge the Minister to be bold in her commitments—I know that she will be—and I sincerely hope that she will work hard to rebuild the trust that women and girls have lost over the last decade when it comes to feeling safe in our communities.
Laura Farris
I will come back on two or three of the hon. Lady’s points.
First, on the hon. Lady’s observation that few such cases result in a charge, if I may correctly her gently, the principal reasons the police have given for that are: too few people coming forward in the first place, which we hope this legislative change will address; the narrow window of time in which a urine sample can be accurately tested, which is one reason why we are funding further research into rapid, on-site testing; and the difficulty in establishing who is doing the spiking. Simply, the difficulties that we have identified and spoken to the police about come at every level in the process. We are changing the law to make spiking crystal clear so that public confidence is improved and victims feel encouraged to come forward, because that is the first bit of the jigsaw.
Secondly, on the scale of our response, from the bouncer on the door of the club in the small town to the statute book, we want to change the response to spiking at every level. Whether it is a question of a friend reporting an incident, a victim coming forward, a test being done more rapidly, or the police having any doubt about which of the provisions under statute apply, it will be crystal clear.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady talked about developing an accurate picture of where spiking takes place and how we develop the response accordingly. That is the focus of the reporting tool, which a member of the public can use to report an incident of spiking even if they are not affected and it appears to have happened to someone at a table on the other side of the room. The tool will enable the police to develop an accurate picture—some of which we already know, some we are less clear about—to see the extent of it, where it happens and how we can focus resources.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that last week there was a debate in Westminster Hall on this subject. Afterwards, I spoke to Dawn Dines at Stamp Out Spiking and had an email from Colin Mackie of Spike Aware, who made the point that none of us had mentioned vape spiking. That was our omission, and I am pleased that this afternoon it has not been the Minister’s, as she included it. We need a 21st century solution to 21st century crime.
Could the Minister expand a little about perpetrators? We know that spiking is done for a variety of reasons: perhaps to effect a sexual assault, physical assault or robbery; or just for entertainment, particularly to humiliate individuals. What other steps are the Government taking alongside this legislative clarity—which I welcome—to ensure that those people who still think it is okay to humiliate, embarrass and assault women get a clear message that it is culturally unacceptable?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for her typically wise question. She is right to mention the vape issue, which I was not previously aware of. That proves the point that whatever legislative changes we make will have to be fit for the future and envisage how the crime might evolve and develop over time. She makes a good point about perpetrators. That was exactly what Thames Valley police told the Home Secretary and me on Friday: a critical part of the VAWG strategy that it and the police nationally focus on is perpetrator behaviour. As part of licensing conditions, the police increasingly work with bar staff, who make a note to establish who is behaving in a certain way in the bar, and who is often on their own or looking to isolate people. Using CCTV can be a critical first step in the police identifying the perpetrators, where they are working, which locations they frequent and who poses the greatest risk to women in a local community.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement and pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for changes in spiking law. But it is almost 20 months since the Home Affairs Committee produced our report, and more than seven months since the statutory deadline for the Government to publish their own report on the issue was missed. The report tells us that the Government are still considering many of the Committee’s recommendations, including the gathering of vital data on crime recording and perpetrators, options for the delivery of a training programme for the night-time economy and options for joint communications on spiking, including working with festivals ahead of summer events and engaging with universities over freshers week. As the report is late, can the Minister explain why it has not accepted the clear, full recommendations on all these points, and why there is still consideration going on in the Home Office?
Laura Farris
I pay tribute to all the right hon. Lady’s work individually and as part of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not want her to be left with the impression that there is a lack of complete commitment on this issue. As I hinted at in the statement, and for the purpose of brevity, some training happens already for bar staff. There is probably a gap with how much those working on the doors know, and they are critical first responders to these cases, which is why I mentioned them. She should not interpret anything in this report as evidence of a lack of ambition by the Government. My statement today is to assure her that we have given this issue our full commitment.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Chelmsford is home to a vibrant night-time economy, with lots of very popular bars, clubs and restaurants. We also have a really strong reputation for being a safe place to enjoy a night out, but from time to time even in Chelmsford stories of spiking come to light. I therefore warmly welcome this package of initiatives, in particular the promise to modernise the law to make it crystal clear that spiking, whether in a drink, through a needle or via a vape, is illegal. It is very timely, as the Criminal Justice Bill is going through Parliament right now and we can put it into law quickly. Does the Minister agree with me and very many campaigners that clarifying the law will act as a strong deterrent to perpetrators and thus help keep women safe?
Laura Farris
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and thank her for her question. First, as I said, the purpose of clarifying the law is to empower more people to be clear on their rights and to come forward. But it is also the case that by having a clear offence in which spiking is defined, the police will be able to use the data of people who come forward and report a spiking incident. That will allow us to build a much more accurate picture, through the criminal justice system, of the extent to which this offence occurs.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement. I welcome any measures to tackle this awful crime of spiking, so I look forward to the Government’s amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has stated that a stand-alone offence would help it to understand the scale of the problem, enable a more accurate picture to be realised and allow enhanced support for victims. Will she outline her reasons for ignoring the NPCC’s concerns and missing a clear opportunity to create a stand-alone offence of spiking? It is welcome news that, as she has just stated, hundreds of door staff will be trained to change the response to spiking at every single level, but I am at a loss as to the logic for why the Government have not included training for staff at outdoor music festivals, where tens of thousands of under 18-year-olds attend, often camping out, and where private security firms are tasked with their safety. Will the Minister extend the training to outdoor music festival staff in order to protect our young people?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for all her work on this issue. I think we are arguing on two sides of the same coin. We agree, without reservation, that there is a need to define spiking in law and that is what we are committing to do. Effectively, it could be viewed as an offence, which will enable people to report clearly and the police to record data in the way that I have suggested. Essentially, there is no particular difference between where the NPCC is and where we are on this issue. I hope that will satisfy her. I encourage her to have a look at the report itself. The ambition is very much to work with staff at every level. We are in no doubt about who the frontline responders are. Yes, festivals are a primary location, as are student campuses. Of course bar staff come into this. The direction of travel is absolutely to further their work in recognising and—ultimately, if our research goes further—perhaps playing a role in testing and supporting the police effort on this particular crime.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This is the best early Christmas present for thousands of our constituents who have been spiked and the many tens of thousands who worry that they may be spiked. It is testimony to the new safeguarding Minister that in my hon. Friend’s first statement to the House she has announced the updating and modernising of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which so many of us who have been campaigning on this issue believe is overdue. She has done this in the presence of both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, both of whose unwavering support on this matter I much appreciate. Will my hon. Friend tell the House when she believes it might be possible to start the process of training, when we might be able to expand the roll-out of the police reporting pilot project, and when we might expect to get an early report back on the results of the drink testing kit, which is so important to a successful implementation?
Laura Farris
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the exceptional work that he has done in driving this forward, working with Ministers and explaining to us issues that we may not have considered previously. I think that was one of the best examples of MPs and, I hope, Government working together—along with other MPs, of course.
My hon. Friend asked, very properly, questions about the reporting and the timeframe. I do not have an answer for him, but I will take his questions back to my officials and see whether we can set a sensible timetable for when he and others can expect some report from the Home Office on what is being done, how effective it is, and what difference it will make. On the question of updating legislation, everyone who has read the published report will be aware that there was a difference of opinion, with some police officers expressing the belief that existing law covered this offence. However, in the life of the current Parliament there have been other important ways in which we have changed the law when some would have said that an offence was already covered. One example is non-fatal strangulation. I have spoken to criminal barristers who say they are securing convictions for that offence in circumstances in which they would not have necessarily done so in the past, and I hope that we will see the same difference in this instance.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome some of what the Minister has announced. When the National Police Chiefs’ Council ran a data collection for spiking incidents at festivals and other events last year, they found that the average age of a spiking victim was just 21, with some victims, shockingly, as young as 14. We know that spiking victims are disproportionately young women, and it is therefore vital that we tackle sexist attitudes early. I am proud that some of the schools in my constituency are taking innovative approaches, but may I ask the Minister to commit to working with her colleagues in the Department for Education to improve and strengthen the sex and relationships education curriculum? In particular, will they look at the recommendations from Women’s Aid for reform of the curriculum so that it directly addresses misogyny and violence against women?
Laura Farris
I am glad that the hon. Lady has asked me that question, because I have had discussions with Women’s Aid and Ministers in the Department for Education very recently to discuss exactly that. I have formed the view that there is a strong imperative for us to look carefully at how we teach children about relationships and about attitudes on these subjects at the start of secondary school, and even, I think, at the end of primary school. Once these issues develop, they are much more difficult to shift, and the key is to prevent them from developing in the first place. There are some good precedents for that being highly effective in other areas, which is what I am exploring at the moment.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box for what I believe is her first statement—the first of many, I am certain. I was alarmed to hear in the statement that the 5,000 cases reported last year were
“perhaps only the tip of the iceberg”.
Will the reporting tool enable anonymised cases to be reported, so that we can have a better sense of the scale of this crime?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. Yes, absolutely; that is a key feature of the reporting tool. The purpose is partly to address some of the issues that prevent people coming forward: they do not think they will be believed, or they think that they made a fool of themselves, or they cannot really remember what happened on the night. The ability to report the incident using an anonymous tool without having to go through the entire criminal justice process—if that is not what the victim wishes to do—is an important element. It has been piloted very successfully in 20 forces so far. We hope that it will encourage people to come forward, and will also help us to develop an accurate picture of what is happening across the country.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have to say that I was surprised by the rapid onslaught of both the spiking of drinks and the use of needles. I do not know many young women who do not put their the hand over their glass when they are out. I hope that I am not being pedantic, but I want to press the Minister: will spiking be a stand-alone offence? She has talked about its being effectively seen as an offence, and about modernising the language, but it is extremely important for it to be a stand-alone offence. Can she please commit herself to that?
Laura Farris
Let me be completely clear about this. We will be amending the Offences against the Person Act 1861 so that the language of an existing statutory provision will capture the modern offence of spiking in all its forms, because we recognise that the language in that Act, although it nominally covers the offence of spiking, will not be clear to a member of the public.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Very serious and worrying cases have been raised with me locally, but I know that this is a widespread, national problem, so I strongly welcome these measures, and I pay tribute to the Minister and all who have campaigned on the issue. May I return to the answer she gave on the ability to report anonymously? Does she agree that that is critical both to gaining a better understanding of what is going on and the scale of the problem, and to making it easier for people to come forward and report?
Laura Farris
I do indeed think that the ability to report anonymously is a critical part of this. I hope the use of that tool on a national basis will mean that people become accustomed to being able to report these incidents, and that as a result they are reported more widely. I hope that today’s statement will generate publicity, and that we will collectively make this an offence that people will feel much more ready to come forward and report.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Brighton has a thriving night-time and entertainment economy—that is what we are based on—but far too many people I know personally have been spiked, predominantly women. When they try to get a test via the health services, very often the pathways are closed to them. Will the Minister ensure that pathways to testing are available not just through the criminal justice system but through the health system, and that it will be a licensing requirement for venues to direct people to the right place—to safety, and then the criminal justice system? Will she also ensure that licensing rules are focused on people’s safety? I hear many reports that licensing rules prevent people from taking a glass out of a venue to get some air, so they leave the glass inside and leave themselves open to danger. Some of this needs to be changed, but outdated licensing rules prevent that from happening and end up putting people at risk.
Laura Farris
The hon. Gentleman has made three excellent suggestions. I will take them all back and write to him.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
These measures will be welcomed by the police, who have been calling for them for many years. When I was Policing Minister, they were starting to inquire about this. Most important, however, is the fact that we worry about our loved ones when they go out. My daughter lives in Sydney, Australia, and spiking is rife there too. I heard an alarm bell ring when the Minister spoke about testing. I am a former Roads Minister as well as a former Policing Minister. When I first introduced the concept of drug-driving, the response was, “Oh, this is very difficult and technical, because there are so many different drugs.” There was discussion of urine testing and how that could be done. The saliva test leads to the prosecution of most drink-drivers and drug-drivers who are stopped. The type approval that the Home Office is looking for needs to be very open-minded. The industries will come forward with the technology. The Minister will be told that it is very expensive—tough; the more we use it, the more the price will come down.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his wise observations. I hope that he was able to infer from my statement that what currently exists is a urine test that the police can roll out. On more than one occasion, the police have told me that they are sometimes inhibited by the fact that even if they do the test, it is not within the window when the drug is still in the bloodstream, so they do not obtain an accurate reading. The reason the Home Office is funding research on rapid drink testing tests—it is still at an early stage—is that, hopefully, it will be possible to test the drink on site. If someone reports symptoms, the venue will be able to work out very quickly what might have happened, using a kit, and the path to redress for the victim can begin on the night itself.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement but urge her to go much further in tackling this terrible crime. In particular, I ask her to look again at further work at music festivals. Thousands of vulnerable young people attend the Reading festival in my constituency, many of them teenagers. It would be good to hear that work is under way to protect them and other young people at such festivals.
Laura Farris
I would like to write to the hon. Gentleman —I have said the same to others—about what we are doing in relation to festivals, but the Reading festival resonates, and not just because my constituency is nearby. When I spoke to Thames Valley police about this issue recently, they said that the Reading festival was not just a festival where they saw spiking, but the festival where they saw the highest correlation with a secondary offence—namely, a sexual offence that was perpetrated afterwards. The hon. Gentleman does not need to impress on me the urgent need for us to look specifically at festivals as a particular danger zone for this type of crime.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and her clear determination to stamp down on this evil crime. She mentioned the police intensification weeks, which I suspect will be very successful, largely down to the use of police power to stop and search in venues in order to find spiking paraphernalia on the perpetrators. However, in the long term there will be a need for training of door staff and bar staff, as she mentioned. Can she give a commitment that if further powers need to be handed down in a very limited scope to door staff—be it at a music festival, a nightclub or a late-night venue—she will not rule that out, to ensure that these crimes can be prevented in the first place?
Laura Farris
My hon. Friend is quite right. Spiking intensification is a form of training that develops how the police think about this issue, but it is likely that it will have to be complemented by what happens among door staff and bar staff, as I mentioned in my statement. We have had feedback from the police that additional powers in both regards would be helpful to them, and we are giving serious consideration to that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Spiking is such a degrading crime. I remember the sense of shame felt by the victims I dealt with when I was taking down the reports of the offences as a sexual offences operational police officer. We need to change the culture in the longer term so that perpetrators do not even think about committing such offences, and I commend the University of St Andrews in my constituency for its consent module in that vein. We need to look at how we can actively prevent these offences, and I welcome the proposals for door staff training. Will the Minister give consideration to the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on mandatory training for certain police officers and the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to violence against women and girls?
Laura Farris
The hon. Lady is right to say that spiking is a form of violence against women. The data is irrefutable: the principal victims are young and predominantly women. It is a classic gateway offence by somebody who is at risk of going on to commit a much more serious form of offending, so this is not just about stamping out the crime; it is about making it impossible for perpetrators to behave in this way in the first place. The hon. Lady talked about the police training, and I want to provide her with some reassurance. I hope I am answering her question when I say that we now have 2,000 police officers in England and Wales who are undergoing specific rape and serious sexual offence—RASO—training. I met some of them on a visit to Bristol recently and I am due to see more in the new year. I would be happy to update her on how that is going and how effectively I think it is being rolled out across forces in this country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I want to put on record my thanks to the new Minister for her rapid work in this area and to colleagues who have worked so hard to secure these changes to our spiking laws. Will she join me in thanking Braunton Councillor Pru Maskell and Barnstaple’s Soroptimists for their campaigning to tackle spiking and their promoting the use of Spikey bottle tops and stop-tops for glasses in North Devon?
Laura Farris
What a brilliant idea! Of course I thank the local organisations that my hon. Friend mentions. This has been a collective effort. Perhaps representing Parliament is at its best when so many MPs have worked with their local authorities or local charities, or have heard the voices of victims who have come to see them in their surgeries, and relayed all that into Government. We have drawn all that information together and got to where we are today but, honestly, without the testimony and hard work of so many local groups such as the ones she mentions, we probably would not be here now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the second good news story that we have heard today in this Chamber. We are very pleased to have that. Can I also thank the hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and others in this House who have contributed to this potential legislation? It is great to hear these announcements on tackling spiking, especially as we approach the Christmas period when so many young people—and elderly people as well—are attending Christmas parties and events across the whole of the United Kingdom. As I understand it, the changes to the legislation will apply to the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The Minister referred to 5,000 cases on the UK mainland. Just to give her an idea of the impact in Northern Ireland, we had 120 cases there in one month. Will she ensure that discussions take place with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the relevant Government Departments to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can adopt this same legislation and keep our people safe as well?
Laura Farris
I am rapidly doing the maths, and it looks as though the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland is at the same level as it is everywhere else in the country. I will make a note that we undertake to work carefully with that force and ensure that there is standardisation across the United Kingdom.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on tackling this issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on his persistence in bringing it to her attention. Sussex police actively helps to prevent spiking by providing anti-spiking drinks covers and stop-tops and by using a drone in Brighton, where there are four universities, to act as a mobile form of CCTV. Can the Minister provide further details on how the Home Office will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to target key weeks when spiking tends to be more prevalent, in order to crack down on the number of incidents and to ensure that police forces share best practice to avoid a postcode lottery?
Laura Farris
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been really vocal on this issue and deserves credit for everything she has done on it. She made two excellent points. The first was about whether the Home Office would respond to flashpoint time periods such as freshers’ week. I think that that is absolutely within our purview and it is set out in the spiking report, which I hope she has had an opportunity to read. The second was about best practice, and that is an excellent point on which I hope to update the House over the course of next year. We can create as many new offences or practices as possible in this House, but unless they are being applied evenly across every force, we cannot be sure that they are working as well as they should be. I hope my hon. Friend will continue to scrutinise the Government on that issue in the months ahead.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I hugely welcome this statement from the Minister and thank the Government for taking strong, positive action on tackling the horrific crime of spiking, which affects young and older people, including students and non-students, and hugely negatively impacts public safety. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House and the public at large that the police and hospitality businesses will be supported to better detect this crime and so ultimately bring these perpetrators to justice?
Laura Farris
I can provide my hon. Friend with that reassurance. The critical part of our response today is that we are working at every single level from the barman to the bouncer to the statute book. We recognise it as critical that people are protected when they are out at night and if they have cause to go to the police the following day. Our objective is to stamp out spiking.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to questions for over 40 minutes. I am now going to seamlessly hand over to Sir Roger Gale.
Bill Presented
General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to provide that an allegation concerning a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise may be considered by the General Medical Council irrespective of when the most recent events giving rise to the allegation occurred; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 26 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 142).
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill
Monday 18th December 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 View all Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill before us today will cement our position as a world leader on animal welfare. It will ban from Great Britain the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter and fattening, putting a permanent end to this unnecessary trade. I am proud to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we continue to strengthen them. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals and we are currently joint top of the world animal protection index. The Bill builds on our proud record by preventing the unnecessary journeys of animals being exported abroad for slaughter.
We have already delivered a raft of measures to protect and enhance animal welfare. In the past five years alone, we have introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and recognised in law the sentience of all vertebrates and some invertebrates via the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. We brought into force the ivory ban, one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales, and the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 prohibits travelling circuses from using wild animals, in recognition of the intrinsic value of wild animals and the need to respect them.
We continue to go further to improve animal welfare. Just this year, we have brought forward compulsory cat microchipping, and we are banning the keeping of primates as pets. Today marks another step forward in delivering better welfare for the animals in our care, as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill will end unnecessary journeys abroad for slaughter. Taking advantage of Brexit freedoms, we can now legislate to end this trade, which we were unable to do for so many years due to European Union trade rules.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
If I may have the liberty of saying so, I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker would be speaking enthusiastically in support of the Bill if he were not in the Chair, because of his commitment to animal welfare.
The Secretary of State has just said that this is a Brexit freedom, and I very much remember it being trumpeted during the Brexit campaign, but that was more than seven years ago. By the time this Bill becomes law, it will be eight years. What has taken him so long?
Steve Barclay
I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are able to legislate. For so many years, Members of this House called for the ability to prevent live exports, but we were not able to do so. Where I agree with her is on Mr Deputy Speaker’s support for animal welfare, which is recognised across the House.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge Members who have championed this important issue over a number of years, which speaks to the hon. Lady’s point. In particular, I recognise my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who has repeatedly lobbied on this issue and, indeed, in 2016 proposed a private Member’s Bill to amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to allow ports and local authorities to ban live exports.
I recognise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who also actively championed a ban, including, in 2017, tabling a private Member’s Bill to prohibit live exports. Although her proposals did not make it on to the statute book, they reminded the House of the public concern on this important issue and, indeed, helped to lay the groundwork for the Bill before us today.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) who has championed this issue both within the Department and within this House. Indeed, there have been numerous debates during which many Members on both sides of the Chamber have spoken passionately about ending live exports, reflecting the strong support in the country for a ban.
I also thank the tireless campaigners whose efforts have helped to raise awareness of this issue among hon. Members and the wider public, particularly the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, which have both actively campaigned on this issue over many decades, as well as World Horse Welfare, which was founded in 1927 to stop the export of horses for slaughter.
Live animal exports have been a focus of campaigning by animal welfare charities for more than 50 years. Indeed, in the 1990s, when millions of animals were exported for slaughter each year, several legal challenges sought to ban live exports. These challenges were unsuccessful, not least because, as a member of the EU, we were bound by EU rules on animal welfare during transport, which prevented the House from acting.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for chatting to me earlier. The export of live animals somewhat suggests travel by sea and, because we do not have an abattoir on the Isle of Wight, we have to export animals to the UK for slaughter before bringing them back. There are potentially more humane ways of dealing with animals, one of which would be to have a small-scale abattoir on the Isle of Wight. On the current small-scale abattoir programme, the Government are working only with current abattoirs and abattoir owners. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can get a small-scale abattoir on the Isle of Wight, so that we can enjoy the spirit, as well as the de jure benefits, of this excellent Bill?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have committed £4 million of additional investment through the smaller abattoir fund, recognising the importance of reducing animals’ journey times. As we have discussed separately, I am happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do in the context of smaller abattoirs, particularly recognising the specific issues of geography in his constituency.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for his kind comments about my long-term involvement. It is great that we no longer have EU barriers, but how can we be sure that we will not run into World Trade Organisation issues? What work has he done to ensure that the Bill survives any potential challenge on trade grounds?
Steve Barclay
I drew attention to my right hon. Friend’s long campaigning, and I will return, if I may, to the trajectory of this issue before addressing her point.
Calls for a ban intensified after 2012, when the Animal and Plant Health Agency intercepted a consignment of sheep due to sail from the port of Ramsgate and 42 sheep were humanely killed after being found unfit to travel. I welcome that, since the 1990s, we have seen export numbers decline significantly. In 2020, around 6,300 sheep were exported from Great Britain to the EU for slaughter, and around 38,000 sheep were exported for fattening. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the UK’s exit from the EU, there have been no recorded exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU since January 2021, and now is the time to enshrine that in law.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for making the point that, from 2021, there have been no further exports for slaughter. My farmers are concerned about reproduction. Can he clarify whether the Bill is just about slaughter? What can be done about the gene pool, by making sure that people are still allowed to trade genetic material across the world in order to strengthen stocks?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend characteristically raises a pertinent point, which I will address. He is right to draw a distinction between exports for slaughter and wider breeding programmes, particularly in the horse industry.
Given the demand from Europe’s slaughterhouses for livestock, especially British sheep, there is no reason to think that this trade would not resume at the first opportunity if we did not legislate now to ban live exports. That is why we must put an end to this unnecessary trade.
Long journey times can lead to a host of animal welfare issues, including stress, exhaustion, dehydration and injury. The journeys that once took young, unweaned calves from Great Britain to Spain for fattening were found to last on average 60 hours, and in some cases over 100 hours.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Bill, on which the Department has been working for some time. This measure was a big component of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in the last Session.
This Bill sends a very important message internationally, because where the UK leads on animal welfare, other countries often follow. My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of the worst problems and the longest journeys relate to livestock going from Australia to the middle east for slaughter. Does he share my hope that the Australian Government will learn from this British example and modernise their laws to end that trade?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. In large measure, that international leadership comes from the leadership he showed, when he was Secretary of State, in placing animal welfare at the forefront of the approach taken by the Government and the Department. I hope other countries will look at that approach and at the benefits it will bring. His leadership is a very good illustration of that.
As my right hon. Friend will recall, even the shortest direct-to-slaughter export journeys from Britain to continental Europe in 2018 took 18 hours. The UK Government, along with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, commissioned the Farm Animal Welfare Committee to examine and report on animal welfare in the transporting of livestock. Its 2018 report drew on a range of sources—
Steve Barclay
Before updating the House on that important point, I will, of course, give way.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State and, as I have not had the opportunity to do this yet, wish him well in the position he now holds. He understands, as I am sure almost everyone in this Chamber does, that the farmer loves his animals and wants to do what is best for them. What discussions has he had with the National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union about this issue, ever mindful that the farmers wish to do what is best for their animals?
Steve Barclay
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman that farmers care passionately for the welfare of their animals. A similar point arises where one often sees the debate on nature and sustainable farming set up as if those things are in conflict. I do not think they are. I think that farmers are the custodians of the land and want to pass it on to future generations in better health, with better soil quality, than before. They have a similar approach to animal welfare issues. Farmers care for their livestock, which is why so many of them will welcome the measures we are taking today.
I was just touching on the 2018 report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee commissioned by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, which included expert opinion through stakeholder engagement, the responses to a call for evidence on welfare in transport, and a systemic review conducted by Scotland’s Rural College and the University of Edinburgh. The report identified several aspects of transport that have a detrimental effect on animal welfare, such as the stress of unfamiliar surroundings, vehicle motion, confinement and poor ventilation. The report expressed concerns about lengthy journeys, recommending that animals should be transported only when necessary.
In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, and following the FAWC report, in 2020 we undertook a public consultation with the Welsh Government on banning live exports. The strength of public feeling against live exports was clearly demonstrated; we received more than 11,000 responses to that consultation, showing that the public care deeply about this issue. Some 87% of respondents agreed that livestock and horses should not be exported for slaughter and fattening, and now is the time to lock in a ban to permanently end those unnecessary export journeys.
The Bill’s core provision prohibits the export of relevant livestock from Great Britain for slaughter and makes doing so an offence. The Bill is focused on banning live exports where major animal welfare concerns have been identified. Accordingly, it legislates to end all exports from or transit journeys through Great Britain of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses for fattening and slaughter.
It may be helpful to speak to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and set out briefly what the Bill does not prohibit. The Bill still allows exports of livestock, including horses, for other purposes such as breeding, shows and competitions, provided the animals are transported in line with legal requirements aimed at protecting their welfare. Animals exported for breeding are transported in very good conditions so that they can live a full and healthy life once they arrive in their destination country. Moreover, the export of breeding livestock from the UK can assist in food resilience of local breeds in third countries. Indeed, British breeds can offer advantages, such as genetic disease resistance and high-quality animals.
The Bill does not apply to journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, nor does it apply to livestock and horse movements within the UK, such as those from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That is to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the UK and Republic of Ireland markets. This Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland.
In addition to the central provision that introduces the ban, the Bill contains a delegated power to provide regulations about enforcement of the ban. It empowers the appropriate national authorities to make regulations to provide for enforcement and sets out the scope of those enforcement regulations, including safeguards relating to powers of entry and the criminal offences that may be created.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister has identified a point of great resentment to people in Northern Ireland who are concerned about animal welfare, and it should be a point of concern for people right across the UK. He has indicated that the Bill cannot and will not apply to Northern Ireland. The journeys that he says are unnecessary, stressful and exhausting, and can cause injury to animals when they are transported from Great Britain, will be able to occur for animals based in Northern Ireland. They can be taken to the south of Spain without any of these requirements being applied to them. How does he explain that?
Steve Barclay
It is because the Bill ensures that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The point that the right hon. Gentleman highlights is part of the wider issues that the House has debated at length, not least when considering the Windsor framework. We have discussed those issues on many occasions in this House.
The Bill empowers the appropriate national authorities to make regulations to provide enforcement and includes safeguards relating to powers of entry and the criminal offences. The power will enable the Department to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to provide an effective and proportionate suite of measures to enforce the ban across England, Scotland and Wales. It will ensure that the enforcement of the ban can work alongside the existing protections on the welfare of animals in transport, which are set out in detail in existing legislation.
The Bill also repeals sections 40 to 49 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Those provisions were intended to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter, particularly by setting minimum value requirements. Now that we are banning all live exports, including of horses and ponies for slaughter, those provisions are no longer necessary. Their repeal will streamline the legislation, avoiding any confusion that might arise from the existence of two measures for controlling the export of horses and ponies for slaughter. Given the degree of support for the ban on live exports, I want to reassure Members from across the House that the ban and its associated enforcement regulations will come into force as soon as possible.
In conclusion, continuing to allow the unnecessary live export of animals for slaughter would undermine this country’s proud record on animal welfare. I am confident that many Members of this House will agree on the importance of advocating for the animals in our care and that this Bill marks another significant milestone in our progress towards delivering better animal welfare across the nation. In 2016, the EU referendum brought renewed public interest in finally ending live exports for slaughter. Now that we have this long-awaited opportunity, I urge the House to support the Bill in consigning this unnecessary trade to the history books. I commend the Bill to the House.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend Mark Drakeford MS, the First Minister of Wales. Mark announced that he was standing down from the Senedd last week. I want to thank him for his friendship to me and pay tribute to his service to the people of Newport West and of Wales over many years. I wish him a very long, happy, healthy retirement.
Where is the Minister for animal welfare? Disgracefully, he is sitting in the other place, having been appointed to the House of Lords last week. The sudden appointment of an unelected peer in the days before Christmas does not inspire confidence that this Government care about animal welfare. The Prime Minister seems to have such little faith in his MPs, such a lack of trust with his Back Benchers, that he cannot find a single Member sitting on the Benches opposite to be the animal welfare Minister.
I welcome the Bill, on behalf of Labour Members, but it beggars belief that it has taken so long to bring this unnecessarily cruel trade to an end. With Christmas in a few days, I acknowledge that this is the season to be kind and festive. On that basis and with Tory Ministers finally doing the right thing, Labour will support the Bill, even if it is long overdue.
I gently say to the Secretary of State that Labour called for a legal ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through Great Britain in 2019, and has been encouraging the Government to act ever since. The Opposition have long called for a ban on live exports because millions of farmed animals risk facing long-distance journeys every year when exported for fattening and slaughter, causing them unnecessary suffering. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, those journeys can cause animals to become mentally exhausted, physically injured, hungry, dehydrated and stressed. That is why the Bill and the changes it will bring about are so important. The Bill prohibits the export of relevant livestock from Great Britain for slaughter, and provides that a person who commits an offence in England and Wales under those clauses in the Bill is liable
“on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences, to a fine or to both”.
The Bill will make it an offence to send, transport or organise transport, or to attempt to send, transport or organise transport for livestock for export from or through Great Britain for fattening and slaughter outside the British Isles. The ban in the Bill applies to a range of livestock, including cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs and wild boar but, we note, not poultry. The Bill is narrow in scope and reach, and the majority of its provisions will extend to England, Scotland and Wales, so the House will be interested in hearing from the Minister about what concrete discussions took place with the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State has already mentioned research and consultations, but what actual discussions were had with the Administrations in devolved areas?
I am proud of the Labour party’s track record on delivering progress on animal welfare in Government. We ended the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998 and stopped the cruelty of fur farming in 2000.
Theresa Villiers
In the last Parliament, Labour MPs and their leader did everything they possibly could to keep us in the single market. If they had succeeded, we would never have been able to ban live exports.
Ruth Jones
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am not sure that it is relevant to what we are talking about today. We introduced the Hunting Act 2004 and the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I particularly commend her point about foxhunting and the action taken by the last Labour Government to tackle that appalling activity. Does she agree with me that there is enormous interest in animal welfare, both around provisions set out in the Bill and wider aspects of the issue? Does she agree that the Government have spent a very long time on this but they have not yet delivered a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, despite previous attempts? Would she now like to see further action taken on that, and on many other matters?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend must have read my speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), because we certainly want people to go further and faster. As the Secretary of State has already said, it has taken seven or eight years to get to this point. Although we are clear that the Bill is only one step towards improving animal welfare, the Government have dithered, delayed and let down livestock, our pets and animals. There have been 13 and a half years of inaction, failure and disappointment.
The Tories have taken a weak approach to animal welfare, from pulling Bills to caving in to their Back Benchers. There has been little commitment to following through on their promises and pledges. I say to Government Members—well, to those who are here—we will take no lessons from this Conservative Government that recently ditched plans to end puppy farming and trophy hunting, among other examples of letting us down on animal welfare. We cannot forget the much missed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, because that is where the Bill comes from. Back in May, the Conservative Government threw out the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and instead decided to implement various measures separately, which is why we are here today.
The Tories’ track record on animal welfare has been nothing short of a disaster. They have shown themselves to be a party that cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting vulnerable animals, just as they have proven themselves to be a party that has no interest in helping vulnerable people. Will the Minister tell us where the ban on cages for farmed animals is? Where is the animal welfare labelling or the action to ensure that farmers from Newport West to Newcastle-under-Lyme, from High Peak to the highlands, are not undercut by low welfare imports?
In particular, where is the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) said:
“Hunting endangered animals is barbaric and must be confined to history. We must stop the selfish trophy hunters who want to slaughter then display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification. The Conservative government must stop siding with these killers. If they refuse to act, they will be complicit in the slaughter as they break yet another pre-election promise.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with that and, if so, what will he do about it? If he does not agree, why not?
There is even more. Where is the action to stop puppy smuggling? Where is the plan to stop pet theft? When will we finally see a ban on the importation of dogs with cropped ears? Will we ever see a ban on snares? The Welsh Labour Government have banned snares and, thanks to pressure from the Labour party, the Scottish Government are planning to do the same, so why is Westminster still dithering and delaying?
Many of these promises were contained in the 2021 action plan for animals. Has the Minister read the action plan? If so, why has he abandoned so many of the promises contained in it? Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. If Ministers really want Tory Back Benchers to lead on animal welfare legislation, the Prime Minister could make one of them animal welfare Minister.
Dr Luke Evans
As a Back Bencher who served on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, the biggest problem was that lots of additional legislation was potentially being added to the Bill. Would the Opposition spokesperson like to comment on the Labour party’s position on halal slaughter, for example?
Ruth Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I look forward to that discussion in Committee.
Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. Rather than Tory Back Benchers leading on animal welfare legislation, Ministers need to get on with it. I pay tribute to all the stakeholders and campaigners who devote their time and attention to fighting for the strongest animal welfare provisions we can deliver. The Opposition stand ready to facilitate a speedy journey through the House for the Bill, but we will seek to make it as strong, effective and durable as we can.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Lady is talking about the Labour party promoting animal health and welfare. How does she square that with the Welsh Labour Government’s policy on tuberculosis in cattle and the UK Labour party saying it will stop control of the wildlife reservoir for tuberculosis, when it has been scientifically proven that that Conservative Government policy has been reducing the instance of tuberculosis in cattle in the United Kingdom?
Ruth Jones
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his interest, knowledge and expertise in this area, but the science is disputed. We will continue to listen to all sides of the scientific argument and look forward to discussing the issue in Committee.
I am grateful for advance warning of the Committee of the whole House, so staff who support the shadow DEFRA team can do some planning over the festive period and enjoy a well-earned rest. I wish the Bill well. When the question is put today, we will support it and I look forward to seeing it signed into law—the sooner the better.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in the debate. We have been waiting for this Bill, which was one of our manifesto commitments, but we had not left the European Union back in 2016 so we had to wait until such time as we could take a decision. As soon as we could make a commitment, we made the decision to introduce the Bill.
The way the Opposition have tried to present themselves on aspects of animal welfare has been somewhat suspect. Indeed, earlier this year, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) shared the reasons why the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill could not be taken forward. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) at the debate, as well as other right hon. and hon. Friends. For the record in Hansard, there is not a single Labour Back Bencher on the Opposition Benches—the one who was there, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), has just walked out of the Chamber—but meanwhile there are 15 to 20 Members on the Government Benches.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
While the Labour party talks a good game on animal welfare, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Conservatives who are significantly improving protections for animals and our much-loved pets?
Dr Coffey
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do think that we should be open about this. Animal welfare should not be a matter for competition, as some try to suggest. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is why there will be strong support for this Bill. We should not try to play each other off, suggesting that one side cares more than the other. Of course, conservation is very much in the DNA of our Conservative party, and that is why I am delighted to be supporting the Bill today.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Let me try to take the partisan element out of this. Our great friend Sir David Amess, who was a Conservative MP and a patron of the excellent Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, was also very skilled at working across parties to achieve objectives, and he was passionate about this cause. Does my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, agree that it would be a great tribute to him if all of us, in all parts of this House, could pass this very important Bill into law?
Dr Coffey
Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I am standing in front of the shield of my former hon. Friend, a conscious reminder of the sacrifice that he paid for being a Member of this House. He will be known forever for his passion for animal welfare, and I am delighted that, as well as his closest friends, his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), has continued that journey.
The Bill is straightforward; it does what it says on the tin. That is the right approach. I wish that other parts of the European Union would agree to this. I am delighted that this legislation is one of the Brexit bonuses. It will be the second piece of primary legislation that DEFRA has introduced—the first being the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. I know that there is more to do, and I know that there are plenty of speakers who wish to speak today, but let us think carefully about how we can accelerate this Bill so that it gets through the next stage in one day—I believe that business has been tabled for the first week back—so that we can make sure that this legislation comes into effect as quickly as possible. That is good for the welfare of animals and good for our reputation around the world. It will show the leadership that we can bring and make sure that we continue to be strong in what we are doing while still recognising the ongoing animal welfare reforms that this Conservative Government have already put in place, and I know that there will be many more to come.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
This Second Reading debate on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill is not simply another ordinary piece of parliamentary business this evening. It marks a profound moment. It is one step of the many steps still required to fortify our collective commitment to the welfare of all sentient beings. At the heart of the Bill lies a commitment to redefine our treatment of animals. Its primary objective is to prohibit the export of live cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter or fattening from the United Kingdom. This is not merely a matter of regulatory oversight in need of correction; it is a principled stand against the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury inflicted on sentient beings during their exportation. The Bill is not about restriction; it embodies progress, evolution and the establishment of more ethical standards in our treatment of animals. Its aim is to ensure that animals are slaughtered in high welfare domestic slaughterhouses here in the United Kingdom, preventing their export to potentially lower welfare conditions elsewhere.
The UK Government’s commitment to allocating funding to farmers to improve welfare conditions is welcomed, as is the provision of the £4 million fund for smaller abattoirs that the Minister outlined, underscoring the comprehensive approach to the legislation. It signifies investment in the wellbeing of our livestock as well as an acknowledgement of the pivotal role that farmers play, and will continue to play, in our communities and in society.
The journey through this milestone has not been without challenge. As we know, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was first proposed in 2021, faced internal turmoil within the Tory party, preventing its progression through this place and, ultimately, leading to the Government scrapping it altogether. Two years later, four DEFRA Ministers and persistent advocacy from every quarter have prodded and prompted the Government to this point—to addressing the pressing issues of animal welfare.
The SNP has been fully committed to the banning of live exports of animals for fattening and slaughter, and we welcome the outlined aims of the Bill. Our track record in Scotland of implementing and managing robust animal welfare standards aligns with our national ambitions. This legislation holds particular significance for Scotland. The Scottish Government have been at the forefront not only in considering animal welfare initiatives, but in protecting our exquisite, world-beating Scottish produce, as well as standing up for those who produce it for us.
The proposed changes in the Bill to livestock transportation times reflect a nuanced understanding of the physiological and psychological impact of transporting these beings.
The maximum journey times for cattle, sheep, pigs, calves and broilers are designed to reduce stress and discomfort during their transportation, demonstrating a commitment to their wellbeing. Collaborative efforts between the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the UK Animal Welfare Committee have sought not only to address shared concerns in this specific area, but to extend their attention to various other issues of concern, including avian influenza control, the culling of male chicks, precision breeding, responsible sourcing of fur, livestock breeding, and the welfare of pigs and equines at slaughter. This collaboration exemplifies the potential for an open and collaborative approach to address broader animal welfare challenges that we will face in the future.
It is crucial to re-emphasise that this legislation is not just about animal welfare; it is about our identity as a society and the values and compassions that we have for ethical treatment. The call for a ban on live exports is not an isolated action, but part of a broader movement for change. Public support for a ban is overwhelming, as has been demonstrated by the many petitions calling on the UK Government to take the kept animals Bill through Parliament. It is crucial to be clear that the ban, as proposed, will apply only to exports for fattening and slaughter from, or through, the United Kingdom. It explicitly excludes the export of breeding animals, recognising their vital role in Scotland’s agricultural sector.
In addition, any changes in legislation must continue to be crafted with a keen understanding of Scotland’s established patterns of livestock movements from islands and remote areas. Any ban must not disadvantage Scottish farmers or crofters by impeding movement between the islands and the mainland. This will be a key concern for us going forward. The ban should not include animal exports for breeding, which are an integral part of Scotland’s agricultural sector, particularly in trade with the Republic of Ireland.
The Scottish Government welcome the UK Government’s intention to introduce this Bill and express a willingness to work jointly with them and other devolved Administrations to ensure smooth implementation across the nations. We in the Scottish National party believe the legislation, if enacted, will not only reflect our commitment to improved animal welfare but also safeguard our reputation as a nation that champions the wellbeing of all living beings. Collectively, let us not squander this chance to make history, to set a standard for compassion, and to ensure that our actions align with the values that we hold dear.
As we continue to debate the intricacies of this legislation at its next stage, let us remain steadfast in our resolve to protect our farming communities and to build a future where the welfare of animals is a non-negotiable priority.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I declare a personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon.
I very much welcome not only the introduction of this animal welfare legislation but, importantly, the cross-party support for it across the United Kingdom. The Bill will ban the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses from Great Britain for slaughter or fattening. That has a huge benefit for animal welfare, decreasing both the stress on the animals that have travelled long distances, and the incidences of injury and diseases that are associated with long travel. This will fulfil a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment, and I strongly welcome that. As has been mentioned by Members across the House, it will also help to ensure that animals are slaughtered domestically and close to home. That is so important to improving animal welfare, because if we reduce the distances that animals are transported, that will be a huge benefit to the animal. It is so important that animals are reared, slaughtered and then eaten locally. That is good for the environment, good for animal welfare and good for local businesses.
Importantly, this Bill stipulates that the meat can then be transported and exported as well. It is much better to transport on the hook rather than the hoof. However, we still need to work on improving transport conditions for all animals—farm livestock as well as horses. I urge everyone not to drop the ball on that. Just because this brilliant Bill is coming in, it does not mean that we do not still have work to do to improve transport conditions for animals.
I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State on the exemptions for the movement of animals for breeding and other purposes, potentially including sport. However, it would be helpful if that was made a little clearer in the Bill and the explanatory notes, so that any doubt is removed. As I said, it is important that animals are slaughtered close to home. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has produced reports on that topic, such as “Moving animals across borders” and many others. One of our key recommendations was that we need to support the UK abattoir network, and ensure that sufficient numbers of abattoirs are spread around the country to reduce the distance to travel. I hugely welcome the Government’s announcement last week of the £4 million smaller abattoir fund, which will go a long way to help with that situation.
I also welcome the Bill’s stopping the export of young unweaned calves for long journeys for fattening and slaughter. In addition to the Bill, we need to ensure that we adapt, and use more of the animals farmed here. We need to reduce the production of dairy bull calves that are then lost to wastage. We can do that with such things as semen selection. We should also encourage the rearing of dairy bull calves locally and the use of less popular cuts and types of meat, such as rose veal. That will help animal welfare in the future too.
Throughout the debate we need to be cognisant of food security, which came into sharp focus with the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Food security is so important for our country, and we need to be much more resilient in producing food. We need to think about the workforce issues. Again, I declare an interest as a veterinary surgeon. An EFRA Committee report recommended that we keep an eye on the number of vets we train and retain in the profession. Prior to our leaving the European Union, 90% to 95% of veterinarians who worked in the meat hygiene sector were from the EU. We need to keep on our radar the need to staff our abattoirs and food processing plants adequately. Last year, we had a crisis in the pig farming sector, with pigs damming back on farms because they could not be taken to slaughter to be processed.
We need to keep an eye on the workforce issues, and think about the resilience of some of the infrastructure. Carbon dioxide is an indirect result of fertiliser production, and CO2 is needed for the slaughter of poultry and pigs. In the last couple of years, CF Fertilisers has shut its plant in Ince and ceased ammonia production at its Billingham plant. For food security and resilience, Government need to keep a watching brief on that.
Mr Francois
As my hon. Friend has mentioned pigs twice, another area where we would like the Government to move—I hope with the support of all parties—is on banning the awful use of pig farrowing crates. I am sure that were the Government to introduce legislation for that purpose—again, the issue was close to Sir David’s heart—it, too, would enjoy great support in this House.
Dr Hudson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
On horses, I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State, and the Bill’s provisions, but huge numbers are still being illegally exported to Europe, under the guises of sport, competition or breeding, where they end up being slaughtered. On the EFRA Committee we heard harrowing evidence from World Horse Welfare that the practice still goes on. I welcome the Bill’s trying to stop that illegal practice, but we need to do more work on that. We need to improve the identification of horses and get a central equine database. The Bill is welcome, but we must not drop the ball on other issues.
Prior to our leaving the European Union, we had a tripartite agreement whereby high-performance, elite and high-health horses were able to move smoothly between Ireland, France and the United Kingdom. We need to try to get a replacement scheme in place. The movement of animals in and out of the country is important in animal health and welfare, and for the United Kingdom’s biosecurity. I welcome the Government’s moving forward with the border target operating model. Hopefully, the station at the Sevington campus in Kent will be in place soon to help with that.
The Secretary of State mentioned the great work of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. I put on record my thanks to the staff of APHA for maintaining our biosecurity—for animal health, plant health and, indirectly, human health. Those staff do so much in keeping the sector safe. As has been mentioned, avian influenza is still with us. The Farming Minister is well aware of that; I have had correspondence with him about it. The bluetongue episodes in ruminants that we are seeing in both Kent and Norfolk show us that we must be diligent with our biosecurity. African swine fever is rising up through the continent of Europe; we need to ensure that we are vigilant to stop that horrific disease coming into the United Kingdom. Heaven forbid that another disease like foot and mouth disease comes into the country. That shows us how important APHA is for our biosecurity and for the future of British business. I urge Ministers to keep making the case to the Treasury to refurbish the APHA HQ in Weybridge, Surrey. It is so important for our national security.
The Bill also has many pragmatic measures. It does not apply to movements within the United Kingdom, which will help, and importantly Northern Irish farmers will still have access to the UK and Irish markets. Some of the practical measures in the Windsor framework are developed in the Bill, but we need further clarity on the movement of animals between GB and Northern Ireland, and vice versa. I know that colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party feel strongly about the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland; 50% of veterinary medicines were going to be lost, but a suspension in December 2022 has extended availability for a further three years to 2025. It is important that we work with our European friends and allies to get clarity on long-term availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland.
The Conservative Government have a strong record on animal welfare. I agree that it should not be a party-political issue. The Government have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022; created the Animal Sentience Committee so that every piece of legislation must have due regard to animal sentience, which is so important; passed the Sentencing Act 2020 to increase the penalties for cruelty to animals; and brought in the compulsory microchipping of cats. Just last week, we talked about banning the keeping of primates as pets. As we have heard, individual Bills such as today’s are being introduced, as well as private Member’s Bills to tackle pet theft, pet smuggling and puppy smuggling, and to stop the import of dogs that have had their ears horrifically cropped, of cats that have had their claws horrifically taken off them, and of heavily pregnant cats and dogs. Those Bills are being introduced, as is another on livestock worrying.
Animal welfare unites us in humanity and across the House. It is so important that we pass the Bill. I welcome the cross-party support, and I wish the Bill well as it travels.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am happy to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), and to agree with many of the things that he said. My party and I are very supportive of the Bill. To ban the live export of animals, in particular cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses and other equine beasts, is a really positive step. We hope there will be no opposition to the Bill this evening, but should it come to a vote, we will support its Second Reading. If there is, we will join the Minister in the Aye Lobby.
We are disappointed—and we are not alone in this—by what is not in the Bill, because it was dropped in the last Session; by the fact that the measures previously promised by this Government are now either being dropped altogether or put through the very unreliable route of private Member’s Bills; and by the length of time it has taken to get here. But we cannot avoid the fact that the ban on live exports of animals is a positive move towards easing unnecessary suffering of animals. The journeys that those animals have been forced to make before being slaughtered are often needlessly stressful and distressing and a threat to animal welfare. It is a basic act of decency that today we begin the process of legislating accordingly.
However, as has been mentioned by more than one contributor to the debate so far, we signed trade deals not very long ago with at least one country that is not abiding by this kind of legislation. Australia still permits live export of animals over long distances, including overseas, for the time being, and in a country much larger and much hotter than the one in which we are legislating to regulate. If we are talking about the impact and influence that this country has on animal welfare, why did we not use that sovereignty and that power to ensure that we were not just exporting the animal welfare problems while importing produce to this country?
That deal threatens not just animal welfare globally, but the wellbeing, welfare and incomes of our own farmers, who abide by animal welfare standards often higher than those we legislate for in this country and legislated for previously through the EU, and are a beacon of strong animal welfare performance. For them to be undermined by that trade deal was an outrageous assault on our farming community and a threat to animal welfare. I hope the Government will learn the lessons from that in any future trade deals.
The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, was right when he said that the UK has the best animal welfare standards in the world. I think that is accurate. Not only does it feel correct, but I think it is accurate. I am concerned, though, that they are not just accidentally so. One of the reasons they are so is the nature of the farming we have in the United Kingdom: largely small family farms, maybe large in geographical scope but small in terms of the size of the businesses. They are the basis of our farming economy across the United Kingdom.
I would say that getting rid of the common agricultural policy and moving to the environmental land management scheme is one of those rarely sighted beasts, a Brexit benefit—a good thing, if the Government were handling the transition well, but they are not. We see that at least a sixth of the money that the Government promised to English farmers is not being spent and has not been spent in the last financial year, not because the Government have chosen to cut that money, but because they have just not managed to spend it. Farmers are losing vast amounts of their basic payments and are gaining very little in environmental payments to replace them. I talked to a farmer on Friday who reckoned that he would make up about 7% or 8% of what he had lost in basic payment via the new schemes.
What does that do to farming across the country? We lose farmers. If we lose farmers, we lose the ability to do good environmental work on our landscape, we lose our ability to feed ourselves as a country and we increase the chances of moving to ranch-style farming, which tends to have less close animal husbandry and therefore, culturally and necessarily, lower standards of animal welfare. As we pass this legislation, and I hope we are going to start that ball rolling tonight and that we will all agree to it, let us ensure that we are not, through our fiscal actions, undermining animal welfare throughout the country.
It is true that how we treat animals is a sign of what we are as a culture and whether we are decent or whether we are not. It is absolutely right that we are doing what we are doing; while the challenges out there still remain, if we can minimise journeys of animals from where they are reared to slaughter, as my neighbour the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rightly pointed out, that is of great significance and importance to tackling animal welfare problems.
My fear is that the red tape and the collapse of the workforce in our abattoirs, not just the inability to bring in vets from overseas, but the lack of other members of the slaughterhouse workforce, mean that many small abattoirs are under enormous threat. Four million pounds will not even touch the sides when it comes to protecting small abattoirs in Cumbria, which are the best in the country—they are family firms, they aid animal welfare and they are massively important to our local economy.
This Bill does many good things, but it does nothing to address a series of other compassionate moves that could have been dealt with in one swoop, as the Government originally were planning to do. The RSPCA, which of course has campaigned for this particular ban for 50 years, found that the dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year and the omissions in the King’s Speech broke a grand total of 14 pledges on animal welfare. I will just list a handful of them.
The first pledge was on zoo licensing. The original plan was for animal welfare standards in zoos to be enforced more thoroughly, increasing the penalties for zoos that missed those animal welfare standards. That pledge was dropped and there was no sensible reason for that. The second was livestock worrying, which is a serious problem for our communities in Westmorland. It is unbelievably distressing to farmers, their families and everybody else to see the goring of livestock by uncontrolled animals. In the Government’s original plans, the police would have been given additional powers to protect sheep and livestock from dogs, something that was not only an animal welfare issue, but an economic one for the farmers. There was no obvious reason why that would be dropped.
The third pledge was a ban on primates being held as pets, and dropping that ban was a ridiculous nonsense. There was no reason why it should not have been in this Bill or why the original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill should not have proceeded. That has been omitted. It is bizarre that that was not all in the same legislation. The fourth was puppy smuggling. We know that, as things stand, people can bring five animals per person in a vehicle over the border legally. We know that puppy farming is a problem, and the failure to tackle it through this Bill just seems peculiar. The lack of additional intervention and action to punish the theft and unlawful importation of such animals seems a massive missed opportunity.
By the way, the Government could have adopted my presentation Bill, the Pets (Theft and Importation) Bill, just a few months ago, if they had wanted to go down that route. The Bill was a reheating of their own promise from the 2019 Conservative manifesto. I just wonder why the Minister did not just seek to adopt my Bill and put it into practice. I would obviously have been very happy if they had stolen every single word of it.
To conclude my remarks, I also regret any sense that one party loves animals more than any other. I understand that, and I am sure that the Government Front Bench is filled with animal lovers as much as every other part of this House. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that that was not enough for, maybe not the Minister, but Government business managers to have acquired the backbone to take on their own Back Benchers when they threatened to be troublesome over a more comprehensive version of this Bill, the one that was promised in the Conservative manifesto and that has now not been delivered.
The omissions from this Bill are a source of shame and anger for many of my constituents in Westmorland, but what remains in the Bill is good, so it would be foolish to oppose it, and we will support its Second Reading.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I think we should acknowledge at the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, the work that you did before you were in the Chair, on this issue and other animal protection schemes over many, many years. It is quite right that we have mentioned David Amess, but his neighbour for many years was Sir Teddy Taylor. I worked for Sir Teddy in the ’90s, when we were desperately trying to get the ban on transporting livestock and we could not—off the hoof and on the hook.
I was also a journalist for a part of that time, and the Express group, as it is now, paid for me and some of the Express photographers, because our lorries were being stopped going to Italy by French farmers. The French were worried about what was happening to their livestock and their incomes. Very often, when they opened those lorries, particularly as they got closer to the Italy-France border, a lot of the animals were dead. I completely agree that farmers want to protect their livestock and look after their husbandry brilliantly, but we could not say that about a lot of the hauliers—I say that as a former haulage Minister. I was really appalled at the money-grubbing way in which some hauliers, particularly those that came across empty from Italy to take livestock back, worried about how much diesel they were using and whether their tachograph was running properly.
The Bill is brilliant. Teddy passed away a few years ago, but he will be watching down on us now absolutely thrilled about the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that there is more that we would like—absolutely. I cannot understand, for instance—this has not yet been mentioned—why we ban the production of foie gras in this country but allow its import. I am sorry, because there are probably people in this Chamber who completely disagree, but it is barbaric. How on earth can someone force-feed an animal? That was rightly banned in this country when we were in the European Union, yet we allow it to be imported.
There are things that we can do, including on puppy-smuggling. My youngest daughter has just spent an awful lot of money on a new puppy. I really hope that it does not destroy her new home in the way that many of the puppies that I have had have done. There are things that we can do. To be generous, I would turn around and say, “This categorically could not have been done while we remained in the European Union.” There have been complaints that it is taking too long, but the time that has passed since we settled Brexit is relatively short. In agriculture and farming, we have had to create a whole new financial field.
Thank goodness for campaigners who are now, sadly, long gone from us. David went too early. You are still here with us, Mr Deputy Speaker. But for those of us who were fighting for this in the ’90s, I am absolutely chuffed to be here this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You just threw me off there—I was expecting to jump up and then sit back down again, as always. I am very pleased to speak in the debate.
I share the attitude of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). We will not oppose the Bill either, but I must put on record some concerns. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a landowner. In an earlier intervention, I referred to the importance of the land. Someone can always buy another house but they cannot always buy the land; Land can never be replaced. It is important to understand that, and I know that the Minister understands it as well as I do. His love of the land is similar to my own.
I do not deal in livestock. Our neighbour uses the land as part of his dairy farm. Some might think that we are all part of the cattle mart in this House. I think that would be rather harsh, but some might see it that way. I hail from a farming community and a country background, so I see at first hand the need for animals to be kept in humane conditions. I am thankful for the farmers in my area, particularly my neighbours, who take such good care of their animals. To me, the Bill’s provisions will not be difficult obligations for our farming community to fulfil because they are already rightly doing so in their care for their animals.
As has become the norm—the Minister probably knew this was coming, but I must put it on record—Northern Ireland is being treated as a third nation with different rules. I agree that there needs to be a sensible working relationship with our neighbours, that our farmers need to be able to meet their market obligations while meeting our animal rights obligations, and that we simply need a better way of doing things, but in a letter to colleagues the Minister said:
“To ensure that Northern Ireland farmers have unfettered access to the UK and Irish markets this Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said as much during his intervention on the Secretary of State, and he will make that case much better than I can when he has the opportunity to do so later. That sounds like a generous pro-Union move to help Northern Ireland in the light of all the problems with the protocol and the Windsor framework.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) referred to the veterinary issue. I get regular reports, from across the Chamber, from across my constituency and from across all of Northern Ireland, that vets cannot get the veterinary medication they want. There might be a deal to say that we have a longer period in which to use medications, but the fact is that we do not have that deal, and vets in Northern Ireland are telling me every week that they cannot access the medications they need. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a deep interest in that matter, but for the factual evidential case we need to put on the record where the problems really are.
If we look at the framing of clause 1, it becomes immediately apparent that there is no need whatever for the Bill not to apply to Northern Ireland, because it does not prohibit the movement of live animals within the British isles. The clause could be changed so that the words “Great Britain” are replaced with “the United Kingdom”, because the offence the clause would create is about movements beyond the British islands.
In that context, it immediately becomes apparent that there is one reason, and one reason only, that the Bill applies only to part of the United Kingdom: because the Government have—and I say this respectfully—given into EU pressure to disrespect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. The EU is claiming the right to make laws in Northern Ireland, including on animal movements. We feel greatly aggrieved about where we are in relation to that. I love my Britishness and my United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I am a second-class citizen. My people—the people of Strangford and elsewhere across Northern Ireland—are also second-class citizens. That annoys me greatly.
We are thus subject to the decisions of legislators whom we did not elect and about whom we know nothing. It seems to me that, rather than protecting the Union and animal welfare within it, the Bill sacrifices the integrity of the United Kingdom, democracy in Northern Ireland and animal welfare at the altar of the all-important wishes of the European Union. I know that the Minister and I are of the same mind on Brexit, but the Brexit that he has is very different from the Brexit that I have. I wish that I had the same as him, but that is not the case just yet. If he could provide a credible alternative explanation, I would be very glad to hear it. Again, my concern is not about the Bill, which is necessary and welcome, but about the exclusion of Northern Ireland so specifically in this scenario. I agree with the Ulster Farmers Union about the need for the free flow of animals, but I am unconvinced that the Bill needs to exclude Northern Ireland. I await the Minister’s response.
I have spoken about puppy farming in Westminster Hall and this Chamber, including in Adjournment debates. Perhaps the Minister will confirm his position. We have criminal puppy-smuggling gangs bringing dogs across from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Ultimately, they are able to bring them across the water as well. We need clarification on that. I know that the Minister is always keen to respond and give us the encouragement that we need, and tonight I need encouragement that puppy farming and illegal puppy smuggling are done for good, and that the gangs who live off the back of those poor, innocent animals are given very short shrift.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Bill as further evidence of the Conservative commitment to improving standards of animal welfare in this country. The presence of the Bill on our agenda means, in my view, that this is a good day for Parliament.
This has been a long time coming. I am talking not about the demise of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but about the decades-long concern about this issue. It was at the end of the Victorian era that the public first started to express their grave concern about the suffering of animals transported overseas for slaughter. Demands that this trade be brought to an end led to Committees being established by Ministers as far back as 1957 and 1974. An attempt to restrict exports in 1992 by the Major Government was blocked by the European Court of Justice on the grounds that it impeded the operation of the EU single market.
The trade peaked at over 2 million animals a year in the early 1990s and opposition to live exports also grew in the 1990s, as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). Very large-scale protests took place, including what became known as the battle of Brightlingsea in 1995. This saw a somewhat unlikely alliance between local Essex residents and animal rights protesters banding together to try to prevent the export of livestock through the town. While, thankfully, exports from the UK have stalled over the past few years, around the rest of the world about 2 billion animals are still subjected to excessive long-distance transportation.
As we have heard many times in this Chamber over the decades, live exports can involve animals crammed into trucks and on to ships for journeys in shocking conditions that can last several weeks, during which they suffer distress from mishandling, overcrowding, excessive heat and cold, motion stress, injuries, prolonged hunger and thirst, restriction of movement and an inability to rest. Of course, the UK livestock sent to Europe should in theory be protected by the EU’s rules on live transport—rules that I certainly fought to toughen up when I was an MEP—but as successive reports from the European Parliament confirm, these rules simply are not always complied with or enforced, so the suffering continues.
Moreover, there is a danger that some animals exported to European destinations, particularly Hungary or Bulgaria, may be sent on to the middle east, suffering even longer journeys and slaughter conditions that are frequently inhumane. Even the animals that stay in the EU can be subject to lower welfare standards. For example, Spain permits barren conditions to be used for calves, which would be illegal if deployed in this country, and cruel and illegal practices in abattoirs in France have been highlighted on a number of occasions, including in reports by the French Parliament.
Practical reasons may have brought this trade from Britain to a halt for now, but we must legislate to ensure that it does not start up again. Vital ethical principles are at the heart of this very long-running debate: the principle that, as sentient beings, animals cannot be treated simply as a commodity; the principle that a civilised society must ensure that all animals, particularly those used by humans as part of our food supply and for other purposes, are treated with compassion and spared unnecessary suffering; and the principle that sending livestock to other jurisdictions, over which we have no control, violates our moral responsibility to prevent unnecessary animal suffering.
Today is an opportunity for us to listen to our constituents, who tell us again and again that they want to end live exports for slaughter and fattening once and for all. I pay tribute to every one of my constituents and other members of the public who over these past decades may have signed a petition, attended a protest, written to their MP or just played a part in this long-running campaign. Like others, I want to thank groups such as Compassion in World Farming, including the redoubtable Peter Stevenson, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare and all those who have worked so hard to get us to this point, as well as figures such as Selina Scott and Joanna Lumley for their commitment and dedication to the cause over many years.
I welcome this Bill, because it will deliver the ban for which I have been campaigning for a quarter of a century, first as an MEP and then as an MP. I committed the Government to it when I was the Environment Secretary, and I secured its inclusion in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. That was the first time that Conservative promises on this issue extended beyond live exports for slaughter to include fattening as well. That was a crucial change, and it is a crucial part of this Bill.
The loss of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was frustrating, but now we have left the EU and the single market, this House finally has the power to determine what our laws on this crucial question will be. With that freedom, now is the time to get this done to set an example to countries around the world where these hellish long-distance international journeys still continue, to ensure that animals produced in this country remain subject to our very high standards of animal welfare—standards determined by this Parliament—and to implement the long-held wishes of the constituents of each and every one of us. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, now is the time to ban live exports.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Although I very much welcome the return of this Bill, I wish it had not been an afterthought. I wish this was not another U-turn, albeit a partial U-turn, designed to paper over the cracks of 13 years of Government failure. More than anything, I wish this Government showed the same concern for the welfare of those who care for our livestock.
Farmers and farms are facing huge deficits in their finances. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has cut, cut, cut funding to our farms. This Government have failed to create a system that is equitable, as the reformed system still disproportionately benefits large landowners. The take-up of the flagship environmental land management policy, the sustainable farming initiative, is very low: only 82,000 eligible farmers are currently signed up. All the while, DEFRA figures show a cut in departmental communications at a time when farmers are the least financially secure in 50 years.
Farmers are being sent like lambs to the slaughter by this Government, and have been betrayed and undermined by the botched Tory Brexit deal and the shambolic lack of planning that has devastated farm finances, leaving many farmers on the brink. Farmers have been let down by trade deals with countries that have far lower animal welfare standards than our own, flooding the market with cheap and lesser-quality produce, and markets continue to narrow further.
I must declare an interest at this point. I may be merely a spring lamb in this place, but I am from a farming family, my neighbours are farmers and my friends are farmers. We are the custodians of the countryside and we care about the welfare of our livestock, so I am keen to shed light on how this Government’s policy, or lack of it, affects farmers. National Farmers Union polling data from August shows that 87% of dairy farmers in England are seriously worried about the effect of Government regulation on their finances. Farmers make up 1% of the UK population, but they account for 14% of workplace incidents, a rate 20 times higher than the UK industry average. Unfortunately, last year, 36% of those were suicides.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Does the hon. Member want to give us a single example of a regulation this Government have introduced on dairy farmers?
Sarah Dyke
I will not at this stage—I will carry on with what I am saying—but of course lots of funding has been cut.
In 2021, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution’s big farming survey found that over a third of respondents displayed symptoms classifying them as having poor mental health as a flagging concern, while 47% displayed anxiety and 21% showed signs of depression. The farmers at the highest risk of poor mental health were those working with pigs, grazing livestock and dairy, the sectors primarily affected by this legislation. The Liberal Democrats were the first to assert that mental health is equal to physical health. I am very grateful to the Farm Safety Foundation for its work, and I hope Members will join me in supporting its Mind Your Head campaign in February. I urge any farmers listening today to use its fantastic “Little Book” to get information and help.
However, we need the Government to step up and stop expecting charities to fill their wellies. I urge Ministers to listen to our farmers, reflect on Government messaging, and devise a properly considered, fully financed, long-term plan for food and farming resilience in this country. I call on the Government to listen to our farmers and to the Liberals Democrats, and to plan for the long haul and value the welfare of our hard-working farmers as much as the welfare of our livestock.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this wonderful Bill. Its Second Reading is hugely welcome, and not before time. I am assured by the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and his statements on the Government’s continued dedication to animal welfare. I have appreciated the opportunity to speak with Front-Bench colleagues about the importance of the Bill, and to share the views of my constituents directly with Ministers. On behalf of residents, I have had the opportunity to engage directly with various animal welfare organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and Cats Protection. The Bill supports the continuing focus on animal welfare, which is important to my constituents.
I recently visited Oak Wood School in Hillingdon, which was hosting a Christmas fair for students with special educational needs that involved interaction with animals. Such interaction not only supports education, but significantly enhances the wellbeing and confidence of young people. The people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip are huge animal lovers. No one could go far in my constituency without spotting many dog walkers enjoying the wonderous open and green spaces that are part of one of London’s greenest constituencies. My inbox is often full not just with campaign emails, but with genuine heartfelt messages that touch on all elements of animal welfare. That has been especially the case over the past couple of weeks, as residents have echoed my feeling in support of the Bill. Indeed, more than 85% of the 11,000 respondents to the Department’s consultation on live exports agreed with the measures in the Bill.
The Bill seizes on the opportunity post Brexit to put an end to journeys that have been described as incredibly arduous, stressful and exhausting for livestock. No more will unweaned calves face cross-channel journeys that could last more than 60 hours, or sheep be transported for days on end. That is especially important when we consider that livestock could end up being exported to countries with far lower standards of animal welfare. According to DEFRA figures, there have been no recorded live exports from the UK since the Government announced their intention to introduce the ban. It is therefore imperative that we pass the Bill, in order to consolidate those figures and make them permanent, while making prohibited or under-the-radar transports illegal.
The Bill continues to build on this country’s proud tradition as one of not just animal lovers, but upholders of animal welfare, as evidenced by the UK’s status as the highest-ranking G7 nation in the animal protection index. It is good to see new statutory welfare codes for pigs, laying hens and chickens, the ban on conventional battery cages for laying hens, and the mandatory introduction of slaughterhouse CCTV. There are tougher penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty, measures to strengthen the law on animal sentience, compulsory cat microchipping, and many other measures. I care deeply about such issues, as do residents across Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am glad to support the Bill this evening, and I look forward hopefully to joining many colleagues across the House in doing so.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I cannot speak in this debate without starting by talking about my amazing predecessor, who campaigned tirelessly on animal welfare during his 38 years in this House, as I know you too have campaigned, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir David was the champion of all creatures great and small, many of which he protected in the confines of his own parliamentary room. At its height, it was home to five bird cages, seven fish tanks and even a tank that housed two turtles on their own, in addition to regularly housing Vivienne, his daughter’s French bulldog. I cannot speak about animal welfare in this House without referring to Sir David. He raised the issue six times during this Parliament before he was murdered; his last contribution in the House, just weeks before his murder, was to ask for a debate on animal welfare. I promised the residents of Southend and Leigh-on-Sea that I would do everything in my power to build on his legacy, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak today.
We are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers. That is why in 2019 we promised the British people that we would ban the live export of cattle, and tonight we are making good on that promise. It is shocking that live animals have long been exported to the EU from the UK for breeding, fattening and slaughter. In most recent years in which live exports have occurred, we were exporting between 25,000 and 50,000 sheep and calves for fattening and slaughter. It is good that the last instance of the export of live animals was in December 2020, but that does not negate the necessity of our passing the Bill. This Bill is a point of principle, and it underpins our commitment to high animal welfare standards.
Some 87% of those who took part in the Government’s consultation on live exports in 2020 thought that livestock and horses should not be exported for slaughter and fattening. That view is echoed by my constituents in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea, nearly 100 of whom have written to urge me to vote to ban live exports. Doing what our constituents and the general public specifically sent us to this place to do is never a bad place to start with any Bill.
It is not surprising that the public take such a view. We all as children saw images on our TV screens of animals in crowded crates and lorries, and it would take the most callous person not to recognise the stress, injury and exhaustion that those animals were subjected to. We have heard about unweaned calves from Great Britain travelling to Spain on journeys lasting an average of 60 hours. That is two days, two nights and another whole day in a crowded, hot crate with not enough food and in absolutely disgusting conditions. In 2018, the shortest journey direct to slaughter from Great Britain to continental Europe was 18 hours. That is an affront to every decent human being. It is high time that we passed this ban, and I am proud that we are doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made the point that if we ensure that animals are transported domestically for slaughter, we can ensure that the conditions in which they are slaughtered are humane. If they are exported off to the continent, we have no idea what pain and suffering they go through when they are slaughtered, and we have heard evidence of very much lower welfare conditions.
I wholeheartedly support making it an offence to send, transport or arrange transport for the export of live livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats and wild boar for fattening and slaughter. I also welcome the necessary exemptions for breeding and competition. Horseracing makes a unique contribution to the UK’s sporting culture, and in particular to the rural economy. I am pleased that the Bill will enable racehorses to continue to travel for racing and breeding, provided that they are transported in line with legal requirements aimed at protecting their welfare. We must remain ever vigilant in making sure that happens.
It is also important, as others have said—this is absolutely something that Sir David would have said—that we remember that we can bring in these measures only because we are no longer members of the European Union. For 50 years, despite multiple campaigns by animal welfare charities, we were unable to ban live exports because we were an EU member state bound by the EU rules, which the European Court of Justice had ruled were lawful. The trade in the live export of animals was held to be lawful as long as welfare in transport was complied with.
This Bill is a real Brexit benefit. It may have been a long time coming, but that does not negate the fact that it is a real benefit. Brexit gives us the freedom to go beyond our European counterparts and underpin our credentials as a world leader in animal welfare. I am proud to be part of a Government who are passing such a Bill. I am proud that this Conservative Government have introduced world-leading protections in any number of areas, and I use this opportunity to encourage Members from all parts of the House to support my Pet Abduction Bill on its Second Reading on 19 January. I also call on DEFRA—I am sure the Minister knows what I am going to say—to look again at Emilie’s law and criminalising dog-on-dog attacks in England, which are such a scourge for so many responsible pet owners who lose their beloved four-legged companion unnecessarily due to the irresponsibility of another pet owner.
I am delighted to support this Bill today. Banning live exports is the right thing to do. The export of live animals has been a stain on our society for far too long. I am glad that it is being stopped, but I am even more glad that, if we pass this Bill tonight, it will never come back again.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am not going to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill, first because we should ask: why has it taken so long? The Conservatives had this issue in their manifesto in 2017, they boasted in the 2019 general election that they would use Brexit freedoms to bring in animal welfare measures, and now, at the end of 2023, we are finally seeing a Bill emerge. There is no doubt about the need for this protection. Members have outlined the undue and unnecessary suffering involved in the live export of animals, and Ministers have made reference to it—whether it is the stress, injuries and trauma for animals; the fact that they are taken to destinations where they are often treated far worse than they would be in abattoirs here in the United Kingdom; the starvation, or the fact that many animals die during those journeys. Of course this is a necessary piece of legislation.
If the Government had grasped the Brexit opportunities, we could have introduced this Bill a long time ago. It is no excuse to say, “We have not had any live exports of animals anyway, so it did not matter.” The fact is that there was a promise and an ability to deliver on it, but it was not done. Members have mentioned many of the other animal welfare measures that could have been introduced on leaving the European Union, but they have not happened. That is the first reason why I will not congratulate the Minister: the Bill is tardy, and it is a mark of the Government’s unwillingness to use the opportunities that Brexit made available to the country.
The second important reason why I will not congratulate the Minister is that the Bill does not refer to the whole of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is left out. When I intervened, the Secretary of State gave the totally spurious reason that Northern Ireland was left out to give Northern Ireland farmers—because we can have movements within the British Isles—the benefit of being able to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the Irish Republic.
The farming Minister may well argue that trade with the Irish Republic may not involve long journeys for animals, because some of the abattoirs are just over the border, and there is significant trade across the border, and that is true. However, if it were only a case of applying this Bill to Northern Ireland so that we can trade with the Irish Republic, it would have been easy to provide for that by having this Bill cover the whole United Kingdom with a clause making it clear that when animals are being exported to the Irish Republic, a final destination must be stated, because of the nature of trade across the border. If the real aim of this Bill, as the Secretary of State has said, is to stop the disgraceful trade in animals being taken for long journeys in terrible conditions with terrible suffering, it has not achieved that for the thousands of animals who will still be able to be transported from Northern Ireland into the continent of Europe.
Mr Francois
I suspect the House would thank neither me nor the right hon. Gentleman if we tried to embark on a long debate about the Windsor framework tonight. I am sure that the Minister would not, either. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree in principle that it would be a desirable outcome if the Government could find some mechanism in Committee—if they could be ingenious about it—so that the benefits of this Bill applied to animals in Northern Ireland?
Sammy Wilson
If the Government did that, I would eat the words with which I started my speech and I would congratulate the Minister. I have suggested that it could be done by making the Bill cover the whole of the United Kingdom. If the only concern is about the volume of cross-border trade on the island of Ireland, the Government should state in the Bill that the livestock must have an end destination in Ireland.
Let me just spell out the Bill’s implications. Thousands of animals are exported to continental Europe every year. The good thing is that we will now, Pontius Pilate-like, be able to wash our hands and say, “If they are going to continental Europe, they will not go through Great Britain.” The Bill makes it clear that a person who exports
“relevant livestock from Great Britain”,
or,
“transports, or attempts to transport, relevant livestock from or through Great Britain”,
or,
“organises, or attempts to organise, the transport of relevant livestock from or through Great Britain”
will be breaking the law. However, there is nothing to stop someone from Northern Ireland taking the animals in a lorry the whole length of the island of Ireland down to Rosslare for a 20-hour sea journey. They could then go on to continental Europe and down to Spain, or wherever the final destination happened to be, and all the suffering that this Bill is attempting to stop would not be prevented for exports from Northern Ireland.
People may say, “There are safeguards on the journey.” When the Northern Ireland Assembly was operative, I remember raising the case of unweaned calves with an agriculture Minister. I asked him to refuse to accept journey logs unless the calves were given milk replacer and unloaded before the lorry went on a ferry. That is a ferry journey, do not forget, of nearly 20 hours. I will share the answer from the Minister, just so that I can spell out the welfare implications of omitting Northern Ireland from this Bill. He said that the Department does not consider it necessary to feed calves during their rest period or before they get on the boat. Even if people do not do that, they will be in compliance with EU regulations. That is the implication of leaving Northern Ireland out of this Bill. The real reason for doing so is not to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland can have free access to the Irish Republic. The real reason was given earlier by another speaker: judgments have been made in the European Court of Justice.
Judgments made in the past still apply in Northern Ireland. Any judgments in the future will still apply in Northern Ireland. EU law will, and does, still apply in Northern Ireland. This Bill cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as a result of the protocol, the Windsor framework and the arrangements that have been put in place, Northern Ireland is still gripped by the tentacles of the European Union. That is the real reason for leaving Northern Ireland out of the Bill. Do not let the Minister pretend tonight that he is concerned about farmers in Northern Ireland not being able to take their cattle to abattoirs or places for fattening in the Irish Republic. If that were the case, he could make that possible under this Bill.
I ask the Minister whether that has been considered in his discussions. If it has been considered and rejected, why has it been rejected? Is he content that a part of the United Kingdom will still have the ability to export sheep, cattle and animals of all sorts right across the continent of Europe and over a long sea journey? The sea journey will be longer now because we cannot use the land bridge of Great Britain. The sea journey will be from Rosslare to somewhere in northern France. To me, that does not look like concern for the welfare of the animals that will be transported.
Although it is not the subject of today’s debate, one of the impediments to getting an Executive set up in Northern Ireland is that kind of intrusion. Even if the Executive were operating today—I believe that the majority of MLAs in Stormont want the same provisions as there are for the rest of the United Kingdom—they would not be able to bring in those provisions, because this is an area where it appears that Westminster does not have any control over the law in Northern Ireland. The Assembly would not have control over the law in Northern Ireland; Brussels makes the decision on this. The European Court of Justice has made a ruling on it, and the sufferers are the animals that are subject to inadequate protection in law.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The first thing I want to do is thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). She paid a lovely tribute to her predecessor, who would be very proud of the remarks she made.
I am here today not only on behalf of the numerous constituents across North Norfolk who have emailed me about live exports, but because this is a matter that I am passionate about personally. I have spoken on animal welfare matters in this place time and again, and I have posted on my social media many times about the importance of respecting, caring for and looking after animals of all shapes and sizes, right down to the tiniest. As Members will know, I am the UK glow worm champion, which always gets a slight chuckle here. Of course, the House will remember my record-breaking dark skies debate on the glow worms that inhabit Sheringham park in my constituency, which I led back in October. On a serious matter, however, we must put animal welfare at the forefront of all spheres of our decision making, and I am really proud that this Conservative Government are doing that time and again.
As the Minister will know, livestock farming—particularly pigs and cattle—is a crucial part of my North Norfolk agricultural market; I have been to see him enough times about it over the years. Locally, we ensure that animal welfare is maintained. Norfolk produces 6% of England’s livestock output, totalling just under £600 million. With that economic backdrop in mind, I am a firm believer that this Bill, when enacted, will bring substantial advantages to local farmers in North Norfolk as well as to our agricultural heartlands, as we have heard from Members of different parties this evening. It will not only bring economic advantages, it will also enhance our local farmers’ capabilities to produce high-quality local food.
In North Norfolk, we go to extraordinary lengths to look after animal welfare. Last summer, I visited the Paterson farm in Worstead, in the wilds of North Norfolk, and saw the wagyu herd. I did not even know what wagyu was at the time.
Duncan Baker
It is.
There was relaxing zen spa music playing in the calving shed. I said, “Is that for the farmhands?” No, it was not. It was to keep the calves and the birthing herds calm, so that they were relaxed and, in turn, all those animals were looked after. Of course, the meat was less stressed as well. That is taking animal welfare to the absolute limit. I do not suggest that every farmer implements a public address system in their calving shed, but it shows the level of care that my farmers take over the welfare of their herds.
This Bill is supported not just by my constituents, but by industry representatives across Norfolk and the UK more widely. I do not think that anyone has mentioned that the National Farmers Union supports it as well, as does the RSPCA. Although it is great that we will no longer see the fattening and slaughter of animals transported overseas, which will be outlawed—it is great that we have not seen that since 2021—it is also important that we get on and pass this legislation swiftly through Parliament, and put it permanently into practice. I will have particular pride when residents come up to me and say, “Name me a benefit of Brexit,” because I can now turn round and say there is yet another one. This legislation is only possible because we have been able to take back control and sovereignty of our lawmaking. By doing away with decision making being bound by the European Union’s animal transport laws, we have been able to introduce this Bill.
No animal should be reared for slaughter and have to suffer in this way. We have changed track, and we have been able to do that by leaving the European Union. We will now continue our world-leading status on animal welfare.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to tonight’s debate, not least because we are graced with no fewer than four former and current DEFRA Secretaries of State on the Government Benches this evening. I found myself looking for a collective noun to describe them: a swarm, as in bees, a shiver, as in sharks, or a crash, as in rhinos. There are endless possibilities.
May I offer festive greetings to those on the Government Front Bench? I am afraid that is going to be the end of my kindness for tonight, because what is inescapable is that the Bill is massively diminished in ambition, just like this Government. I say to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who spoke with real passion, conviction and knowledge—I agree with much of what he said—that the issue for the Opposition is that this could all have been done more than two and a half years ago. Those of us who sat on the Bill Committee for the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, as I did, will recollect the days and days of interviewing witnesses, taking up their time and expertise, and raising their hopes and the hopes of millions across the country that action would be immediately forthcoming. Days were spent in Committee. Yes, the Opposition tabled amendments and made suggestions—that is our job—but there was also strong support from the Opposition for what the Government said they were trying to do, because that Committee was trying to address the very real problems of the day: the suffering of caged primates; the worrying by dogs of farm animals; puppy smuggling; cruel mutilation such as ear and tail cropping; and the pain of pet theft. All that and more has been happening every day since. For almost 1,000 days, the Government have allowed those abuses to continue. Perhaps the Minister will explain why we have had to wait so long.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about measures in the kept animals Bill. Several other measures, including the foie gras ban, are in scope of this Bill, but the Government have chosen to use private Members’ Bills to try to further that agenda. Is that not a hugely flawed approach?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who hits the nail on the head. The Government are so timorous and afraid of further suggestions—[Interruption.]. You should be, actually. They are so afraid that they have had to resort to this piecemeal approach. Frankly, it a complete abrogation of responsibility, and what a profound disappointment to those voters who in 2019 read the Conservative manifesto and thought that the Conservatives cared about animal welfare and would do these things. What a let-down.
This pared down slither of a Bill is welcome only in that there is finally, belatedly some action on this one issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) said in her opening remarks, we welcome it, we will not oppose it, and we will try to improve it in Committee.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The shadow Minister mentioned the Conservative party’s 2019 general election manifesto. My predecessor Neil Parish sought to amend the Agriculture Bill to prevent the ratification of any trade agreement that did not guarantee that the same animal welfare standards would be applied to imported food. Does the shadow Minister agree that standards for UK production are only half the picture unless we demand those same animal welfare standards are applied to imports?
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely. Of course, Labour Front-Bench Members made that point repeatedly, as did the hon. Member’s predecessor and others on the Government Benches, including, of course, former Secretaries of State who find themselves no longer in their posts and now free to speak their minds.
These issues matter because the British public really care about the health and welfare of animals. We have seen this in many polls, but a recent one has indicated that more than two thirds of respondents believe that we should do more to improve animal welfare and protect animals from cruelty. We really are a nation of animal lovers, as many have said, and a significant majority think that the Government have a clear responsibility to protect innocent and vulnerable animals from unnecessary suffering. It is indeed one of the main roles of the state to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and that must include animals. The Government’s track record on animal welfare, which did indeed once look promising, is now in tatters, but we are relieved that at least some progress is being made in the form of this ban on live exports. As my colleague stated at the outset of the debate, we will support the Bill and look forward to its being signed into law at very long last.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
May I first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
I thank Members from across the House for their constructive approach and for their comments and support for the Bill. It has been brilliant to hear that consensus. Although there are a few areas on which we may disagree, it is clear that we can agree on the core aims of the Bill. That deep value that we all place on animal welfare acts as our lodestar, and I am grateful for that shared perspective.
The Bill builds on our proud record as world leaders on animal welfare. Ending the unnecessary export of livestock, including horses, will prevent the associated stress, exhaustion and injury caused by those journeys. It will signal to our international partners our firm commitment to improving welfare standards for kept animals and reinforce our position as global leaders on this important issue.
Many animal welfare groups have called for this ban on live exports. We have heard support for the Bill from Government Members. May I put on record my acknowledgement of the KALE—Kent Against Live Exports—group, which has done an enormous amount of campaigning on the issue, working with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who cannot be in his place today, and other colleagues across the House? We know that there is huge public support for the ban, as evidenced by the flood of respondents to our consultation, 87% of whom agreed on the need for the ban on exports for slaughter and fattening. There is clearly broad recognition that we must end these unnecessary journeys, and we are taking the opportunity to do that.
May I pay tribute to a number Government Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who has vast experience in this area, gave an excellent speech and has focused a great deal of effort on making sure that horses are not affected by their export. He also referred to bluetongue and African swine fever. I assure him that we are very much on the case of making sure that our borders are secure. This week, I will talk to the chief veterinary officer about bluetongue and our response for next spring.
I also pay tribute to all four former Secretaries of State, and it has not gone unnoticed that we have had four times as many former Secretaries of State on the Government Benches as there are Labour Back Benchers in their places. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is a good friend of mine and drove the Bill forward during her time. I will get myself into trouble, but I also draw attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who started the process. She has been an amazing campaigner and has a fantastic track record on animal welfare. It has not gone unnoticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) is a passionate campaigner on animal welfare, just as his predecessor was. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box without paying tribute to the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who was a passionate campaigner on animal welfare issues. That leaves to the end my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who has picked up the baton from her predecessor. I knew that we were to get a lecture on Emilie’s law as she is a campaigner who wants to stop dog-on-dog attacks. I pay tribute to her for all her efforts on animal welfare.
I was amused by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who told us about cows being played music and radio stations. I hope that they will not be played Radio 4 and “Farming Today” on a regular basis—that could be quite depressing for those animals. I assure the House that it certainly does not cheer me up every morning.
We have had a mostly positive debate. There were a few little chips from Opposition Members, but I will not dwell on them too much. Party politics should not really play a role in animal welfare. We in this House all care about animals because we are members of the United Kingdom and we are British—caring about animals is within our DNA. The Government will continue to push hard on animal welfare.
Mr Francois
As the Minister knows, I have always had a lot of time for him, so I shall not press him on the Windsor framework, but I think that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) had a point. Our great friend Sir David would have warmly welcomed the Bill, but he had a long shopping list, so, at the risk of pressing on the Minister’s generosity, will he agree to meet David’s excellent successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), and me early in the new year to talk about the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s 2015 report on farrowing crates, so that we can at least have a discussion on the issue and see whether anything at all can be done?
Mark Spencer
I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friends. Should my diary allow, I am sure we can find a slot for that to happen.
I pay tribute to all colleagues who have participated today.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister. I hope that he was not coming to a conclusion, but was about to address the very important point that I raised in the debate. The Bill should include animal welfare provisions right across the United Kingdom. There is a route by which his concerns about cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would be dealt with, while at the same time ensuring no loophole for long journeys for animals into continental Europe. Will he take that up in Committee?
Mark Spencer
I commit to continuing this conversation with the right hon. Gentleman beyond the Chamber. I should be clear that livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to a slaughterhouse. It would be an offence for them to move anywhere else. On arrival at the slaughterhouse, the animals and the accompanying health certificates must be presented to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs officer at that point. Livestock exported for any other purpose—not for slaughter—would need to remain at the place of destination in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days and be re-tagged. That is necessary to comply with the animal identification requirements after arriving in Northern Ireland.
The requirements would mean that livestock must remain in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days, and would make the slaughter trade uneconomic in those circumstances. I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him offline. We have given some thought to this and have had conversations with our friends both in the Ulster Farmers’ Union and Northern Ireland.
Sir Mike Penning
The Minister is very kind. One thing he probably did not hear me mention was foie gras. He has not mentioned the fact that I made a speech, because it was not that good. Will he commit the Secretary of State to meet me—my office is only two doors down the corridor from him—to discuss why we are allowing foie gras to be imported into this country, when we banned its production here? I made that point in my speech but, clearly, I did not get it across hard enough.
Mark Spencer
The danger of mentioning colleagues by constituencies is that, occasionally, I miss one out. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not singling him out for his brilliance, which is a matter of record in this House. I get into trouble for making commitments at the Dispatch Box for my own diary, so I am not about to start making them for the Secretary of State’s diary. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend were to write to the Secretary of State, he would be able to answer that question.
Once again, I pay tribute to colleagues who have participated in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Animal Welfare (Livestock Export) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5)Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together.
Ordered,
Public Accounts
That Sir Simon Clarke be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Gary Sambrook be added.
Work and Pensions
That Steve McCabe be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Marsha de Cordova be added.—(Mr Marcus Jones, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Highways Maintenance and Integrated Transport Funding
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The good news is that, to everyone’s relief—including yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not intend to use the full time technically available to me to filibuster on this important matter, although I do hope to make an important contribution.
Potholes drive us potty in the Potteries, which is why one of my top priorities is to fix our broken roads and pavements. The great city of Stoke-on-Trent has suffered from decades of under-investment in our roads. Previous Labour-run administrations failed to invest into our road network. It was not until 2019 when Councillor Abi Brown, the former leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and her deputy, Councillor Daniel Jellyman, made the right decision to invest a record £39 million to resurface more than 1,200 roads and pavements and fix more than 30,000 potholes. This was helped by being the first local authority to have the Staffordshire technological advancement, the JCB Pothole Pro, which fixes potholes twice as fast and at half the cost of other machinery. It is excellent that we now have one of those revolutionary machines for Staffordshire County Council, which will serve the people of Kidsgrove, Whitehill, Talke, Butt Lane, Newchapel, Mow Cop and Harriseahead.
The Prime Minister’s recent Network North announcement unlocks transformational funding for our road infrastructure, demonstrating that it is a priority for this Government. More than £8.3 billion has been set aside for councils to bring roads and pavements up to scratch. The Local Government Association argues that this will significantly improve councils’ ability to improve our road infrastructure.
Despite that investment, the funding that comes to us via the National Highways funding formula is simply not good enough, and it puts pressure on a local authority with the second poorest council tax base in the country to take money from other services in order to ensure that our roads are fit for purpose. Given the pressure on local authority budgets, it is essential that smaller cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are not put at a disadvantage.
Comprised of six towns, Stoke-on-Trent is geographically unique. Realistically, my constituents need to drive or take the bus from Burslem, Tunstall, Smallthorne or Kidsgrove—to name a few—if they to go out and about, shopping, visiting loved ones, attending a GP appointment or simply enjoy a pint down the pub. People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke rely on their cars more than people elsewhere, because we do not have a tram network like in Manchester or an underground network like in London. That is why it is essential that our city has a reliable road network to better connect our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this issue. We all know that he is an assiduous and eager MP for his constituency. Does he agree that the scope of the formula ensures that rural towns and villages providing transport routes to all major towns will be fighting for the table scraps? Recognition needs to be given to the roads in small towns and rural areas on the way to the big cities. When they are closed, that means no deliveries and no commutes. The formula should treat the feeder areas as a priority as well.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is a rite of passage in Adjournment debates. On rural communities, the Minister helpfully reminded me—believe me, I do know—that lambasting on behalf of Stoke-on-Trent will probably not go down as well with my Staffordshire-based county council, which benefits from the funding formula. Later, I will explain why the formula could be looked at or there should be a top-up element for smaller regional local authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent. They need investment, while hopefully not unfairly disadvantaging rural constituencies, such as the one the hon. Gentleman represents with great dignity and pride. Ultimately, it is as important that their roads are resurfaced and repaired as it is for the places of Stoke-on-Trent. I appreciate that I am walking a tightrope with the very people I serve, but hopefully I will fall on the right side of it, if I fall at all.
Out and about in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, and when dealing with casework in the office, the state of roads and pavements comes up frequently. That is evidenced by my regular pothole patrol, where my team and I go out at least twice a week across the constituency looking for roads and pavements that need repairing, reporting back to the local authority. Let me use this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Nathan, Conna, Jess and Mya, who all work in my office in Tunstall, for going out in all weathers to assist me and the community by reporting potholes to our local authority.
One of the reasons for Stoke-on-Trent’s broken roads and pavements is the unfair road funding formulas. The formulas put busy cities like Stoke-on-Trent at a disadvantage, and I have been campaigning to change them since 2020. The current highways funding formula used by the Department for Transport is calculated on road length, rather than road usage. Therefore, a busy road in the centre of a city will get less funding than a long winding D road in the countryside that is used less intensively and with fewer vehicle types such as heavy goods vehicles. Research conducted by the Department for Transport in 2018 suggests that A roads under local authority control made up only 10% of road length across the country, but that that 10% carries 31% of the nation’s traffic. Minor roads made up 88% of road length, but the proportion of traffic they carry, 34%, was only slightly greater than that on A roads. The remaining 35% of traffic is carried on the 3% of roads that are motorways or trunk A roads.
Clearly, the current road funding formula is putting smaller cities like Stoke-on-Trent at a disadvantage. I want to see new considerations introduced to the formula that would top up cities like Stoke-on-Trent, which lack the mileage of minor roads but show due regard for road type, with principal A roads attracting a premium in some way related to their reported condition. The high concentration of warehouses in Stoke-on-Trent means that our roads are used by heavy goods vehicles more regularly. Again, that puts the city at a disadvantage because bigger vehicles carrying heavier loads do more damage to road surfaces. There would need to be safeguarding against false reporting of road conditions, and it would be useful to include a match-funding element for cities, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that put precious resources into roads despite having a low council tax base.
It is not something we like to brag about in Stoke-on-Trent, but there is an old folks’ tale that the word “pothole” originated in our fine city after Josiah Wedgwood decided to dig up all the clay available in the road to make his fine pottery, and to put the pottery that was not up to scratch back into the roads to make sure we had a surface. It is not something we like to brag about, but it is certainly something we want to deal with to ensure we have a pothole-free community. When I start seeing constituents floating ducks or planting flowers in their roads—once or twice I have even thought about a bit of pitch and putt in some of the streets, because of their poor condition—it is vital that they feel they are getting their rightful investment.
Westminster City Council spends around £70 million a year on road maintenance thanks to its parking revenue. That is in stark contrast with Stoke-on-Trent, which spends on average between £700,000 and £800,000, or around 1% of Westminster’s figure. It is extremely difficult for Stoke-on-Trent to match Westminster’s parking revenues, which means more support needs to be directed to areas that struggle to generate as much revenue as the likes of Westminster. For example, I have been campaigning to resurface Gloucester Road and Newchapel Road in Kidsgrove, a key arterial road linking the parish together. Four schools, a day nursery, Maple Tree Court care home and the pump track at Newchapel Rec, which I secured from the Kidsgrove town deal funding, are all located off this road, so it is critical that it is safe for both pedestrians and motorists. Over 300 local residents today have backed my petition to Staffordshire County Council, and I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to add his weight to my campaign.
I also hope that, in trying to get the funding formula changed, the campaign will be a roaring success with motorists in the constituency, just like the victory we secured when over 1,100 residents backed my petition to call on Stoke-on-Trent City Council to rule out Sadiq Khan’s disastrous Marxist ultra low emission zone policies from coming to our great city. I commend Stoke-on-Trent Labour for its bravery in standing up against its national party policy, when Labour’s deputy leader, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—I informed her ahead of the debate—said she wanted to see ULEZ
“in towns and cities across the whole of the UK”.
Cabinet member Councillor Wazir remained silent for over 100 days before finally coming out against ULEZ-loving national Labour to rule out these anti-motorist policies. It is a relief to residents across Stoke-on-Trent and wider north Staffordshire, who will be able to use our improved roads without facing farcical attempts to punish them for getting from A to B.
The Government’s Network North announcement presents a new deal for the north and the midlands, helping the region to compete with London and the south-east. Along with the improvements to our bus and rail networks—such as the reopening of the Stoke to Leek line, closed since the Beeching cuts of 1969, following my petition which received the backing of over 1,000 local residents and a campaign alongside my north Staffordshire colleagues—Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire’s road network will also benefit significantly. As I said earlier, over £8.3 billion has been set aside for councils to bring roads and pavements up to scratch. Money from that £8.3 billion will be used to upgrade junction 15 of the M6, a main access route to the Potteries from the south, which will reduce delays coming off the motorway.
We are also going to see upgrades to the A50-A500 corridor from Stoke to Derby, which could save drivers over 30 minutes every weekday. These enhancements could create over 12,000 new jobs and generate millions for the west midlands economy. Following a report called “Levelling-up Stoke, Staffordshire, Derby & Derbyshire: The Road to Success”, a series of recommendations were put forward for long-awaited upgrades badly needed to alleviate bottlenecks along the 90 km-long A50-A500 corridor, which links Derby, Nottingham and Leicester to Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire and the north-west. The road is one of the UK’s key arteries and large manufacturers such as JCB, Rolls-Royce and Toyota rely on this key east-west route to keep supply chains moving and provide links to international markets.
Currently, traffic congestion on the A50-A500 threatens to stand in the way of business growth. The route sees between 60,000 and 90,000 vehicles passing along it every single day and needs urgent support. The project has the backing of MPs, local authorities and businesses, and is key to unlocking growth in the west midlands, where cities such as Stoke-on-Trent will benefit significantly if those businesses flourish. I am pleased that the money from Network North is being set aside to help deliver this key route.
Finally, while I have the Minister here, I want quickly to mention another beneficiary of the Prime Minister’s Network North announcement: Kidsgrove railway station. Having spent months negotiating who is responsible for remediation works to mitigate the risk from former mining activity at the site, I am dismayed that Network Rail has still yet to take full responsibility. Plans include a new car park to increase capacity and drive more footfall into Kidsgrove town centre, which will supplement the landmark town deal funding. That is in addition to other upgrades at the station, including new shelters on the platforms and a café. There is also the shared services hub, which is another significant beneficiary of the town deal. I am calling for Lord Hendy, chairman of Network Rail, to hold James Dean, the west coast main line’s route services director, to account for repeated failures to act in the interests of the people he is supposed to serve.
I am incredibly proud of the work we have done as a local community to secure investment in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire since 2019, but there is more to be done both in Stoke-on-Trent and nationally. The overriding mission of levelling up is to allow places such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which have not seen the benefits of an economic consensus driven by Whitehall, to compete with other parts of the UK. The road funding formula is symbolic of that and changing it would be of huge benefit to our city. It is a litmus test for the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing the debate and on enlightening the House so much, as he always does, about his amazing community—I know it well, as I visit it frequently. He is genuinely transformational in his representation of it. It is rare in an Adjournment debate to be enlightened by the words and actions of Josiah Wedgwood, the origins of the word “pothole”, a limerick or lyric to describe how they drive the community potty in the Potteries, and so much more. Reference was made to the amazing Tunstall Team, as I shall now call them, who have transformed action in the local community. I pay credit to all the team who are doing great work in bringing forward action on the local roads.
This is an important topic and there should be no doubt whatsoever that we in Government take it very seriously. My hon. Friend rightly raises the condition of local roads, which up and down the country are a matter of great importance for motorists and local communities.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
One area where potholes are at the forefront of people’s minds is Devon, where we have an 8,000-mile road network—as long as Iceland’s, and twice the length of Rwanda’s. In rural areas such as Devon, the roads are also affected by, for instance, agricultural vehicles, which place greater strains on them than are placed on urban roads.
Guy Opperman
I believe that the community that I represent in rural Northumberland is the second biggest in the country. It takes me the best part of two hours to drive across it. I am extremely familiar with the impact of the farming community, and I am well aware of the consequences of forestry lorries in my own patch in Hexham. However, I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Government recently gave a 30% uplift to Devon County Council. It also gave an uplift to Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which I will discuss shortly in rather more detail. While the hon. Gentleman has made the fair point that there is much to be done to upgrade the road network, it is unquestionably the case that there has been a massive and utterly unprecedented increase in funding for local authorities up and down the country.
That derives, of course, from the Prime Minister’s October announcement about Network North and the plan for drivers, which make it clear that this Government are firmly on the side of the motorist, and also firmly on the side of those who wish to improve our road network. Even before the Network North announcement, the Government were already allocating more than £5.5 billion to local councils in England over the current Parliament to enable them to maintain their roads. On 4 October, however, the Prime Minister confirmed £8.3 billion of extra funding for highways maintenance for the next 11 years, following the challenging but necessary decision to scrap the northern leg of HS2. This unprecedented funding increase will be additional to what local authorities were expecting to receive over the period in question. It will enable an unprecedented transformation in the condition of our highways, and will help to tackle the scourge of potholes.
Local authorities in the midlands and the north that are not part of mayoral combined authority areas will also receive their share of the brand-new local integrated transport settlement fund that was announced as part of Network North. We believe that local communities know best what transport solutions work in their areas, and the LITS fund will empower local authorities to fund the local transport infrastructure that their areas need. That could include upgrading road junctions, upgrading pavements, reducing congestion, and helping buses to run more reliably. The money could also be spent on additional highway maintenance activities, over and above those already funded through the Department’s highways maintenance block, if that is a local priority—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has made it very clear that as far as he is concerned, it is a local priority. The Department hopes to publish the LITS allocations for individual local transport authorities shortly—that is, in the next couple of months.
In keeping with the Prime Minister’s commitment, all funding previously allocated to the north and the midlands will still be allocated there, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome. Of the £8.3 billion, £150 million is being made available in the current financial year to allow authorities to make an immediate start on resurfacing their roads. The Department made the first payments—this is apposite in the context of the debate—on 1 December, and it will give them their share of an additional £150 million again in 2024-25.
Let me now turn to what this means for local highway authorities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. Stoke-on-Trent City Council received an extra £378,000 this month as its share of the Network North uplift, on top of the earlier increase of £528,000 that it received as part of the £200 million uplift announced in the 2023 Budget. That means that, overall, Stoke-on-Trent will receive 30% more road repair funding than it received last year, which is a massive step forward. This is, we believe, a real and tangible benefit that the people of Stoke-on-Trent will see for themselves, and a great testament to the work of my hon. Friend and his Stoke-on-Trent colleagues in advocating more road investment.
That share of the uplift is very good news for my hon. Friend’s constituents. All this takes Stoke-on-Trent’s total highway maintenance funding from the Department to more than £3.8 million in the current financial year, on top of about £1.6 million of integrated transport block funding. Over the full 11 years of Network North funding—as my hon. Friend knows, it is provided for a period on a continuous basis—Stoke-on-Trent will receive an additional amount of more than £22 million.
I note that some of my hon. Friend’s constituency falls in Staffordshire, and I take on board the point raised by my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Some support will also go to Staffordshire County Council, amounting to an uplift of more than £3 million this month, on top of the increase of £4.5 million that it received after the 2023 Budget. Over the full 11 years of Network North funding, Staffordshire will receive over £186 million of additional funding. This long-term certainty gives time for local authorities and their supply chains to ramp up and then deliver their programmes of work. The funding is much more than the local highway authorities were expecting and represents an increase of around two thirds in the Department’s support for local highway maintenance. We want to ensure that the funding delivers a transformational improvement in the condition of local roads.
With so much extra funding, there also needs to be greater scrutiny of how the money is spent. We will therefore require all local authorities to publish by March 2024 a summary of the additional resurfacing work that they will deliver with the new funding over the next two years. They will thereafter publish quarterly reports summarising what additional work they have done and which roads have been resurfaced, and then publish a long-term plan for the full use of their 11-year funding and the transformation it will deliver.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of ringfencing and I want to try to address that. Clearly this is an important point about the way in which funding is provided to local authorities. I know that some would prefer capital funding for local councils to be ringfenced, and I have some sympathy with that argument, but the funding is not strictly speaking ringfenced in law. What happens is that, in providing it, the Department makes it clear to all local authorities that it expects every penny to be spent on highway maintenance activities. If there is any evidence that it is not, the Department makes it clear that it reserves the right to reduce future grant payments to the authority.
Those new reporting requirements that we are imposing as part of Network North will also allow the public as well as Members of this House to hold their local authorities to account to ensure that we have proper use of the funding. We want to introduce proper, democratic accountability for taxpayer-funded repairs to roads and upgrades to potholes, so that there is proper accountability and we can ensure that this funding is being spent properly.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about the way in which the current funding formula works. He argued that it should take account of traffic volumes as well as road lengths, to reflect the fact that urban roads generally carry more traffic and therefore need more maintenance than lightly trafficked rural roads. I accept that this is a potential argument and it is one that he makes with great eloquence, although others have pushed back and, representing a highly rural community with thousands of miles of roads, I fully understand the alternative argument.
The funding formula methodology was created following a public consultation in 2014. Traffic volumes and different types of traffic certainly contribute to road wear and tear, but there are other factors, such as the weather, that can cause roads to deteriorate. The Department has no immediate plans to change the formula, and we would not do so without consultation with local authorities. That would unquestionably be required. Any change would result in winners and losers across the country, which would without a shadow of a doubt be a matter of concern to many Members of the House and to individual local authorities. The most important thing the Department can do is to increase the overall funding amount to benefit all local highway authorities, and this is what we have announced with the Network North plan. Obviously, as always in this House, we take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend, and this is part of the ongoing debate and consideration, but I stress that it is not our intention to proceed down that route at the moment.
My hon. Friend raised specific roads—I think Gloucester Road was one that he mentioned—and I take those points on board. Clearly, good-quality roads are essential, upgrade is important and the good maintenance of the roads is vital. We are working with local highway authorities in England and National Highways to assess the condition of road surfaces, but we are also working with the British Standards Institute and the Transport Research Laboratory to develop a new standard for assessing road condition which will help councils to deal with road defects more effectively.
We are also encouraging the use of new technologies into the market, one of which is the famous Pothole Pro that my hon. Friend mentioned, which was developed in his area. It is a genuinely innovative way ahead for dealing with this, and I greatly look forward to getting involved with it. I am trying to persuade the Department to find me the appropriate bit of machinery that I will then drive to address his particular problem. There are some health and safety issues that I have to overcome, but he will understand that it is a mission with which I am shortly to engage.
We want to reduce the time that drivers lose, and the stress that they experience, due to roadworks. We are also making it quicker and easier for local councils to establish lane rental schemes, and we are consulting on requiring local authorities with such schemes to use at least half of any surplus funds on pothole repairs. We are also helping councils to find innovative ways to look after their roads through the £30 million Live Labs programme run by the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, which will try new, environmentally friendly ways of managing and maintaining local roads in various parts of the country.
Through Live Labs, we are testing a wide range of different highways materials to support the move towards net zero carbon for local roads and infrastructure. My hon. Friend will be aware of the plan for drivers, which the Government announced in the autumn. We are not only trying to support motorists in a variety of individual ways, as set out in the plan, but we are using taxpayers’ money to support local authorities with record increases in funding. There has never been such funding.
The Government are putting in place transformational new funding to maintain the local road network over the next 11 years, with significant uplifts from the present basis. We are firmly on the side of the motorist, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon
Not content with being in the anti-apprenticeship party, given her plans to weaken the apprenticeship levy and halve the number of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady is also taking on the mantle of T-level denier. We have 18 T-levels; we have, as I mentioned, a 90.5% pass rate; we have 10,000 students doing our T-level programme; and we expect the data that we will release early next year to show that many thousands more students are doing the T-level programme.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 597.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). The correct answer should have been:
Robert Halfon
Not content with being in the anti-apprenticeship party, given her plans to weaken the apprenticeship levy and halve the number of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady is also taking on the mantle of T-level denier. We have 18 T-levels; we have, as I mentioned, a 90.5% pass rate; we have 10,000 students doing our T-level programme in the 2022 cohort; and we expect the data that we will release early next year to show that many thousands more students are doing the T-level programme.
After-school Childcare: Long-term Educational Outcomes
The following is an extract from Education questions on 11 December 2023.
David Johnston
In October, the Government announced the allocation of £289 million of start-up funding to local authorities for wraparound care, which we know supports parents to work, as well as having the potential to improve attainment, engagement and attendance.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 597.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). The correct answer should have been:
David Johnston
In October, the Government announced the allocation of £289 million of start-up and expansion funding to local authorities for wraparound care, which we know supports parents to work, as well as having the potential to improve attainment, engagement and attendance.
Pupils with SEN and Disabilities
The following is an extract from Education questions on 11 December 2023.
David Johnston
We are investing £2.6 billion to transform the special educational needs and alternative provision system. That has included a 36% increase in funding to Birmingham, where the timeliness of EHCPs has been getting better each year between 2020 and 2022.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 600.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton). The correct answer should have been:
David Johnston
We are investing £2.6 billion in capital funding to transform the special educational needs and alternative provision system, and there is a 36% increase in revenue funding to Birmingham, where the timeliness of EHCPs has been getting better each year between 2020 and 2022.
Higher Education Institutions: International Students
The following are extracts from Education questions on 11 December 2023.
Robert Halfon
As I said to the hon. Lady, we have something like 689,000 international students and our target is 600,000 a year.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 605.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). The correct answer should have been:
Robert Halfon
As I said to the hon. Lady, we have almost 680,000 international students and our target is 600,000 a year.
Robert Halfon
I am absolutely committed to the target of 600,000. As I said in response to the previous question, we have surpassed that, with well over 680,000 students.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 606.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). The correct answer should have been:
Robert Halfon
I am absolutely committed to the target of 600,000. As I said in response to the previous question, we have surpassed that, with almost 680,000 students.
Petitions
Road closures in South Northamptonshire
UK Meal Card Scheme
Westminster Hall
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
International Health Regulations 2005
(11 months, 1 week 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
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 635904, relating to the International Health Regulations 2005.
In March 2021, a group of world leaders including the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. The initiative was taken to the World Health Organisation and will be negotiated, drafted and debated by a newly established, intergovernmental negotiation body. This is the second time that the Petitions Committee has scheduled this issue for debate. In April this year, a petition that called for the Government to
“commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the World Health Organization (WHO), unless this is approved through a public referendum”
was debated after it reached the threshold of 156,086 signatures. Today’s e-petition calls on Parliament to
“Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005”.
The Government have responded to the petition, explaining that the UK supports strengthening the IHR and the amendment process.
Having met the petitioner, I know that she would like the Minister to address the concerns of the petitioners in his response, specifically which amendments, if accepted, would require changes to UK domestic legislation; who represents the UK; if the information will be publicly available; the Government’s position on the amendments that change language in the regulations from “may” to “shall”; and if the UK will vote against those changes. What is the UK’s position on whether the regulations should be binding or non-binding, and has it proposed any amendments? I hope that the Minister will be able to address those issues in his remarks when we get to that stage of the debate.
In the March 2021 joint article, the group of leaders said:
“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”
Given the weekend news coverage of the fallout from some of the challenges faced in the procurement of PPE, it is perhaps timely that we debate the petition today. When the next pandemic happens, I hope that any future Government will have learned the lessons from the past.
On specific questions of UK sovereignty and amendments relating to restrictive measures, the UK Government have explained in their response to the petition that
“we have been clear that the UK will not sign up to any IHR amendments that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. There are currently no plans to hold a vote on IHR amendments. Should the UK Government wish to accept an IHR amendment, then depending on the content of the respective IHR amendment, changes to domestic law considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the IHR amendment, may be required. The Government would prepare such draft legislation before Parliament in the usual way. In all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged, and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national public health measures.”
Finally, I take the opportunity to thank all our healthcare workers who worked through the pandemic. As we go into the Christmas period, many of them will be working while we are enjoying turkey dinners with our families, so I pay tribute to their commitment and to all others who work in our healthcare systems. The pandemic affected us all differently, and I hope that in this season of good will we are mindful of all those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. With that, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all members of the public who have engaged with e-petitions, including this one in 2023. I look forward to hearing the well-informed contributions of hon. Members.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I call the first speaker, I remind Members that if they wish to contribute, they should bob. I remind those sitting in the Public Gallery that there should be no applause and no photographs at any time.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for moving the motion and agreeing to the debate in her role as Chair of the Petitions Committee—it is very much appreciated. I also thank the 116,391 people who signed the petition, including 189 of my Shipley constituents, which helped secure this important debate.
In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster Hall, as the hon. Member mentioned in her opening remarks. I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric, when valid concerns were dismissed as an “overreaction and hysteria”. It is clear that this is—quite rightly, in my opinion—an important issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions.
So what are we dealing with here? We have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies. The first concerns the amendments to the existing International Health Regulations 2005—the IHR—and the second is the World Health Organisation’s new pandemic treaty, which would support the bureaucracy and financing of the expanded IHR. Both instruments are designed to transfer decision-making powers to the World Health Organisation, with the admirable aim, no doubt, of improving how the world prevents and better prepares for disease outbreaks. However, in practice, what is being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of society and on our sovereignty. If the IHR amendments go through, countries will have undertaken to follow recommendations, not merely consider them: it is proposed to remove the word “non-binding” from article 1, while the regulations in article 42 are to be
“initiated and completed without delay”
by member states. Therefore, we can only assume that the intention behind the amendments is for them to be binding under international law.
I do not wish to over-egg the nature of the proposals, but I cannot help but be concerned by the thought of removing the word “non-binding”. There is much in the existing IHR that would suspend fundamental human and bioethical rights, such as requirements for vaccinations and medical examinations, and implementing quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons—in other words, mandates and lockdowns. It is all there in black and white under article 18. We may have become only too mindful of the harms of lockdowns, and I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the latest findings published by the Centre for Social Justice about the harms caused by lockdowns. That is not to mention the non-existent science used to enforce wearing a face mask—the covid inquiry has also uncovered the fact that that was based on absolutely no science whatsoever.
At the debate in April, we were told by the then Minister that it is “simply not the case” that
“the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 34WH.]
I think it is worth revisiting this question, because I am not clear how national and parliamentary sovereignty can be upheld if the proposals are agreed. I draw attention to draft new article 13A, which calls for member states to
“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”
and to recognise the World Health Organisation not as an organisation under the control of countries, but rather as the
“coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern”.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the lack of accountability? We are having an extensive and public examination of the Government’s response to covid, but there is no comparable examination of the important decisions and advice that the WHO offered to the whole world, and it probably had more influence.
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. We should all be concerned about that and concerned that we do not end up falling into the same problems as we have had in the past, being in a position where there is nothing we can do about it and sleepwalking into a disaster.
We are talking about a top-down approach to global public health hardwired into international law. At the top of that top-down approach we have our single source of truth on all things pandemic: the World Health Organisation’s director general, who it appears will have the sole authority to decide when and where these regulations will be deployed. Let us not forget that the director general is appointed by an opaque, non-democratic process—and I think that is being rather generous.
Rather worryingly, in their response to this petition the Government have said they are
“supporting the process of agreeing targeted amendments of the IHR as a means of strengthening preparedness for and response to future health emergencies; including through increasing compliance and implementation of the IHR”.
They have also previously said that they support
“a new legally-binding instrument”
—that certainly sounds like a threat to parliamentary sovereignty to me. Will the Minister commit today to laying those plans before Parliament so they can be properly debated, and if I had my way, robustly rejected?
It is also vital to take a step back and understand what is driving this pandemic preparedness agenda. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, Dr David Bell gave a briefing on how the World Health Organisation, with the backing of the World Bank, says these amendments are the only way to prepare for future pandemics that it says are getting more frequent, and where there is more risk from zoonotic—animal to human—spread. The reality is that the WHO’s figures do not tell the whole story. When we take into account population growth, significant natural pandemics are rare events. We also have to take into account that there has been a huge expansion of tests and genome sequencing over the last few decades. The invention of polymerase chain reaction testing, for example, has had a massive impact on the detection rate of those outbreaks that the World Health Organisation is now using to justify its agenda.
Since the Spanish flu over 100 years ago, we have only had two pandemics above the average yearly seasonal influenza mortality rates, thanks to antibiotics and advances in modern medical care. We hear a lot about disease outbreaks that actually have low mortality burdens when compared to other public health threats: for example, in 2003, SARS-CoV-1—severe acute respiratory syndrome —had the equivalent disease burden of about five hours of tuberculosis. Funnily enough, in its 2019 pandemic influenza recommendations, the World Health Organisation itself could find no evidence that serious zoonotic pandemics were increasing. What is undoubtedly increasing are the eye-watering costs of managing pandemics, with vast sums of taxpayer money being wasted on poorly conceived initiatives, such as locking down the economy for two years.
It seems to me that the World Health Organisation has no need to rush any of this—we have time to reassess and get it right—and it seems I am not the only one to think that. In recent weeks, we have seen signs that some countries, including Estonia, Slovakia and New Zealand, are looking to question the proposals. It is not clear if any member states have submitted formal notices to reject them and opt out, but New Zealand does appear to have lodged a reservation to allow the incoming Government more time to consider whether the amendments are consistent with a national interest test required by New Zealand law. That is entirely sensible, and I would like to see our own Government take a pause to apply some critical thinking to this situation before blindly supporting the World Health Organisation’s installation as our new global public health power.
It is absolutely essential that the Government make a clear and unambiguous promise that they will neither support nor abide by anything that in any way undermines our national sovereignty. We have not spent so many years battling to get out of the frying pan of the EU to jump straight back into the fire with the equally unaccountable, undemocratic and hopeless World Health Organisation.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I, too, thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today. I would also like to thank Dr David Bell—someone who actually worked for the WHO for a number of years—for his briefings to me, and also the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse for his contributions to the information I have with me today.
I would like to start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Both he and I spoke in the public petition debate on 17 April this year when we considered the pandemic treaty. It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel. My opening question is this: why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty?
In referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and the proposed amendments to the international health regulations currently being negotiated, the director general of the WHO has stated:
“No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO.”
His statements are clear, unequivocal, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to. I remind the Chamber that this is the unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying, and immune-from-prosecution-due-to-diplomatic-immunity director general of the WHO. All employees of the United Nations and the WHO enjoy those particular perks.
Any rational examination of the text in question shows that the documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function that countries undertake to enact. The WHO director general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.
The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision making, currently vested in nations and individuals, to the WHO when its director general decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is very unusual for nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when that has a major economic and geopolitical implication. The question of whether sovereignty is being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to legislators of democratic states such as ourselves. We have an absolute duty to be sure of our ground, and I systematically examine that ground here today.
Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important.
The IHR set recommendations under a treaty process that currently has force under international law. Those recommendations seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to co-ordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency occurs, such as the pandemic. Most are non-binding, and those regulations contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can currently recommend. That includes article 18, under which it can
“require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”
When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates—“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health.
However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the universal declaration of human rights—the UDHR. I will remind the Chamber of those rights. Under article 2,
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”,
including, under article 9, no arbitrary detention. Protected under article 12,
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”.
Under article 13,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”
and,
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
Under article 19,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Under article 20,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”
Under article 21,
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.
Under article 23,
“Everyone has the right to work”.
Under article 26,
“Everyone has the right to education.”
Under article 28,
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”
Under article 30,
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group of person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.
The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current documentation to requirements through three mechanisms. The first is the removal the term “non-binding” from article 1, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Shipley. Second is the insertion under new article 13A the phrase that “Member States” will
“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”
and recognise WHO not as an organisation under the control of countries, but as the “co-ordinating authority”. New article 13A states:
“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”
As article 18 makes clear, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If the transfer of decision-making power—sovereignty—is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as “recommendations” could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.
Thirdly, under article 42, “State Parties” undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction. Article 42 states:
“Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties, and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”
“Non-State Actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director general declares a public health emergency of international concern.
Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a state to provide resources,
“health products, technologies and knowhow”
and to allow the WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country—that is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses. The WHO also repeats the requirement for the country to require the implementation of “medical countermeasures”—testing, vaccines, quarantine—on their population where the WHO demands it.
Of note, the proposed article 1 amendment to remove the term “non-binding” is actually redundant if new article 13A and/or the changes to article 42 remain in place. That can, and likely will, be removed in the final text, giving the appearance of a compromise without actually changing the thrust of the transfer of the sovereignty, because of the two other articles.
All of the public health measures in article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints—as annex 1, new article 5(e) says, “Counter misinformation and disinformation”—clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity”. No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.
It seems outrageous, from a human rights perspective, that the amendments will allow the WHO to dictate to countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg code and the declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation in cases such as clinical trials and vaccines, and the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights refers specifically to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behaviour and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication or medical examination, which involve a direct provider-person interaction.
If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation. Forced examination or medication outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to be able to comply or reject, when provided with the information, is unethical. Requiring compliance to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If that does not fit with the WHO’s definition of infringement of individual sovereignty or of national sovereignty, then the director general and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition of sovereignty they are using.
The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity into a new era that is strangely organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times. A new governance structure, under WHO auspices, will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies. That is under article 12, which states that
“in the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers”
and article 20(1)(e):
“provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.”
The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream that is separate from WHO funding and an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments. Article 20(2) states that the funding will also include an endowment of
“voluntary…contributions from all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; and…donations from philanthropic organizations”.
I wonder who those organisations referred to in article 20(2)(b) might be; perhaps someone who made a lot of money out of mRNA vaccination.
This is taxation without representation. Currently, countries decide on their level of foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they may already have agreed to allocate to organisations such as the WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount of money that countries must give as part of treaty agreements but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities, which is quite the opposite of previous ideas on integrated health policy. It also gives power to external groups, which are not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever they deem it necessary.
In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of nation states, the agreement will require countries to establish, under article 15:
“no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)”.
That will consecrate effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of their products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorisation—that will be embedded; that will be the norm—or indeed that the WHO requires countries to mandate on their citizens.
As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency, under article 18, in order to:
“combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation”.
As we have seen during the covid-19 response, the definition of “misleading” information can depend on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that would impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing this agreement, Governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed to do so by the WHO.
The scope of this proposed agreement and the IHR amendments is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded by the WHO. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the director general’s discretion, if broad definitions of a One Health policy are adopted as recommended.
It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organisation, and it is even more challenging to envisage how this can be seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit and that there is no intention for us to treat it in any other way than as an irrelevant piece of paper or as something that would perhaps only apply to less powerful states than the United Kingdom—possibly as a colonialist tool. I have spoken at length to elected representatives in Africa and urged them to urge their elected assemblies to reject this power-grab by the unelected and unaccountable WHO.
Both texts are intended to be legally binding; the IHR already has such status. Therefore, the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries actively voice their opposition and rejections, the adoption of the current published version, dated February 2023, will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep diktats.
The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. The WHO discusses this issue, and it has been supported by the International Negotiating Body and various declarations of the G20.
As I have said, the IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials, who previously described the proposed agreement as a “treaty”, now insist that neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication is that it is states’ representatives at the World Health Assembly who will agree the transfer, not the WHO itself, as if that makes any difference to the UK’s loss of sovereignty.
The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version, dated 30 October 2023, requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favour within the WHA. Opposition from a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail the project. Because it is backed by powerful Governments and institutions, financial mechanisms, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and bilateral aid, are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries extremely difficult to sustain. Much of the world therefore looks to our Parliament to step up to the plate and protect democracy around the world.
The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies. Why would we do that? If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by Governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of Governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice, so it is important that those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.
The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and the media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. They assert that claims of reduced sovereignty are misinformation or disinformation, which they assert elsewhere are major killers of mankind. Although such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, such as myself, the WHO is clearly guilty of the very crime of which it accuses others. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign from their positions, and we should defund them.
The WHO lists three major pandemics of the last century: the influenza outbreaks in late 1950s and 1960s, and the covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed fewer than die each year from tuberculosis. The reported deaths from covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease, and remain almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared with endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS. To put the pandemics in perspective, no other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic—that is, the rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen that does not normally cause significant harm—has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis, which kills about 4,000 a day, or more life years lost than a few days of malaria, which sadly kills 1,500 children under five every day.
If our Government, the Opposition parties and their supporters in the public health community consider that the powers currently vested in national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of that level of recorded harm, it would be best that we have a public conversation as to whether this is a sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favour of a more fascist and authoritarian approach. After all, we are talking about restricting basic human rights that are essential for any democracy to function.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the debate and the petitioners, because it would be a grave error were the Government to sign a treaty that gives away important powers over the future conduct of health policy. It is wrong to give to the WHO the sole power to decide when there is an emergency, and it is wrong to give away our powers of self-decision were such an emergency to be visited upon us.
We are, of course, members of the WHO, and I think we all agree that we should continue to be members of the WHO. We should share our information; we should draw on its research, and it will draw on research and knowledge in this country, where there is much medical and pharmaceutical company expertise, and together, as collaborators, we may get to better answers in the future. However, it would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances.
Before any such power is vested in the WHO, there should be a proper inquiry and debate about how it performed over the course of the most recent covid pandemic. Why, for example, did the WHO seemingly concentrate on vaccines, rather than other methods of handling the problem? Why was there the delay or difficulty in testing existing drugs, which had already passed proper safety procedures and might have had beneficial or easing effects for those who got the condition? Why was more work not done on use of ultraviolet light behind the scenes in airflow systems, to clean up air when circulating? Why was more consideration not given to isolation hospitals and health centres, given that, unfortunately, quite a lot of the disease was spread through health premises. With the use of isolation, other healthcare could have continued during the course of covid treatment without so much cross-contamination within general hospitals. Why were there not recommendations and advice on isolation?
Why was there not more careful consideration of whether it would be better to concentrate on ensuring that those who were most vulnerable were protected from the presence of the disease as much as possible, rather than trying to lock down whole populations and then having to make exemptions so that we could keep the lights on and some food could be delivered to people’s homes? There was something rather arbitrary about who was allowed to go to work and who was not.
Why was more work not done by the WHO on cleaning up the data? We were given comparisons between countries, but when we looked beneath the data, we discovered that those countries were using very different definitions of what a covid death was. In individual countries, under the impact of the wave of the disease, there were often great difficulties in carrying out proper diagnosis of whether someone did have covid, or whether other medical problems that the person was suffering from were more likely to have caused the death. Some countries took a very tough line, saying that anybody with covid died of covid, even though they might have had lots of other conditions, so those countries had big figures, while other countries took a rather narrow view and said, “Well, this person was in their mid-80s and they were suffering from another a number of other conditions that might have led to the difficulties.”
Andrew Bridgen
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the WHO refuses to conduct any review of the recommendations it issued during the covid-19 pandemic, so sure is it that its advice and recommendations were absolutely perfect? If we sign up to these instruments, we will only get more of the same.
John Redwood
That is one of my worries. We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.
As I understand scientific method, it is not choosing a limited number of scientists and believing everything they say; it is having a population of talented and able scientists who challenge each other, because then we get more truth out of the challenge and exchange of ideas. We do not want an international body saying, “There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it.” We need that process of challenge, and we need it to be an accelerated process. When we have an urgent and immediate need of better medicines, vaccines, procedures and approaches to lockdown or non-lockdown, that is surely the time for healthy debate, constant review and sufficient humility by all of us who venture opinions, because time and events could disprove them very quickly. If that happens, we should learn from the process and be honest about it, rather than saying that we were right all along and there was only one possible approach.
That is all I wish to say, that I think we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate. Yes, the WHO can make an important contribution and can be a forum for scientists, pharmaceutical companies and others who will be part of the solution should we get some future wave of infection, but please, Government, do not trust it with everything. Do not ensure that future Ministers are unable to act responsibly and well in response to public opinion and to medical opinion within our own country. Do not sell us short, because that would also sell the world short. This country has a lot to offer in these fields, and it will be best if we allow open debate, proper review and serious challenge.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Maria.
I begin by declaring an interest. My wife, Olivia, works as a senior radiographer in the national health service. Throughout the pandemic, she continued to report for duty at her hospital, including, on occasion, knowingly treating patients who were covid positive. I married a good and brave woman, Dame Maria. She does not know I am about to say this: I want to pay tribute to her and all her colleagues in the national health service, who put their lives on the line to save those of many others. They deserve our admiration and thanks from their Parliament.
I have received quite a few emails from constituents on this issue. I have also had strong personal representations from Councillor Ian Ward, who ably represents Lodge ward on Rochford District Council, who feels very strongly—take my word for it, Dame Maria—about all this and has made his views very clear to me as his MP.
For the record, I am all for better sharing of information and intelligence between nations to try to prevent the spread of any future pandemic. Would that the Chinese had done more, and more quickly, to warn the rest of the world about what was coming from Wuhan. I reluctantly accepted the need for an initial lockdown, but I confess that as time wore on, I became increasingly uneasy at the effects of the lockdown, not just economically but socially, and not least the impact on people’s mental health. We are still seeing some of those effects playing out in our schools today, as my headteachers tell me when I visit local schools.
I am now concerned about the potential amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 being brought about at the behest of the World Health Organisation, not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic. As one constituent put it in her email:
“Almost no-one who is informed believes the…WHO performed anything other than appallingly during Covid, with disastrous results. Yet there seems to be no attempt to reform this unelected, unaccountable organisation, which British taxpayers fund in the millions. On the contrary, a drive is evident to give the totally undemocratic WHO ever more power, ever more of our money and ever less scrutiny.”
That was her opinion, but I think my constituent has a point.
I understand that on 31 May 2022, the delegates of the WHO formally adopted five new amendments to the international health regulations. I further understand that those amendments come into force under international law for all member states within 24 months—that is, by 31 May 2024—unless those member states choose proactively to opt out of them. Of the five new amendments, there is one of particular concern as it would severely compromise the ability of the public to lobby politicians to reject future amendments by reducing the time available before they might come into force. That amendment to article 59 would significantly reduce the time allowed for a country’s leadership to reject IHR amendments adopted at future World Health Assemblies from 18 months to 10 months.
Mr Francois
Forgive me, but the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length; perhaps he will let some of the rest of us have a go.
Up to 300 amendments to the international health regulations are being negotiated and finalised, to be voted on in May 2024 at the 77th World Health Assembly. The amendments being negotiated include: first, amendments to make WHO emergency guidance legally binding—it is currently only advisory—on member states; and secondly, amendments that would empower the WHO director general to single-handedly declare a public health emergency of international concern, giving this unelected, unaccountable individual unprecedented levels of power to dictate UK public health policy and to restrict fundamental freedoms.
Philip Davies
Is it not even more extraordinary that that power would be given to that person, given that, as I understand it, the UK voted against his becoming the director general of the World Health Organisation in the first place, and he was China’s man for the job. Does that not make it even more extraordinary that the UK would want him to have those powers?
Mr Francois
It does, although some people favoured by China have been doing very well lately. None the less, I take my hon. Friend’s point.
Thirdly, there are amendments to implement an international global health certification system enabling nations to enforce travel restrictions using tools such as vaccine certificates, passenger locator forms and travel health declarations—all tied, potentially, to a personal QR code. Fourthly, there are amendments that would increase censorship of dissenting voices by mandating systematic global collaboration to counter dissent to official governmental or WHO guidance.
Taken together, the proposed amendments empower the WHO to issue requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures, such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, travel restrictions and medication of individuals, including vaccination, once a PHEIC has been declared by the WHO. That is something we should all be very concerned about. We as parliamentarians are guardians of the country’s liberty, so we need to be very anxious about that.
I have been known to raise concerns about the loss of our sovereignty in Parliament before. Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 states that the will of Parliament is sovereign—and so it should remain. I have a key question for the Minister—I have known him for years; he is a decent man. Will he take the trouble to answer this question very specifically in his wind-up? Otherwise, I will intervene on him. My key question is: could the amendments, even potentially, allow the World Health Organisation to put this country into lockdown without our approval? Yes or no?
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I thank all the petitioners and members of the public who are interested in the debate, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) who introduced it. It is worrying that so few Members are present. I am always proud to act in concert with my band of brothers here—we happy few who seem to fight on multiple fronts. This is a fringe issue in Parliament, as demonstrated by the empty Benches, but significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic, so what is going on?
I think the explanations are partly that it is a complex matter. It requires significant delving into pretty abstruse documentation and websites. As the debate goes on, it is not always thrilling. It is also that we debate issues of principle, such as the abstractions of sovereignty and individual rights, that often fail to get traction in the media. Although occasionally generating headlines, they do not generate proper attention in Parliament or the media.
The fundamental reason why the topic and the proposed regulations and treaty from the World Health Organisation have not generated the sort of disquiet that we few Members feel among our colleagues, the wider public and the media is that we want, as individuals and citizens, to trust in the Government when it comes to healthcare. We really do. That is why we have such a commitment to the NHS in our country. We want the state to be trusted, authoritative and capable when it comes to our health. We instinctively recoil at suggestions that there is a problem when it comes to the management of healthcare, and yet, as we have heard today from colleagues who put the details very well—I will not reiterate the points that have been made—there is clearly a difficulty, a challenge, a problem with the proposed regulations and treaty.
It is suggested by the World Health Organisation and the Governments who are contributing to the design of the regulations and the treaty that the WHO should move from being responsible for identifying pandemics on behalf of countries, and towards taking responsibility for co-ordinating the response to pandemics. That is an enormously significant change. It would co-ordinate the response of nation states and how they managed their health care. We have heard expressed very well the threat that that represents; it could mean enforced mandates, forced lockdowns and so on. I echo the call on the Minister to address the question whether the World Health Organisation will be able to impose a lockdown, or any other intervention, without the consent of Parliament.
I would also like the Minister to reflect on the provision in the proposed regulations that suggests that the World Health Organisation would require countries to tackle misinformation and disinformation. We must remember that in January 2020, the organisation aspiring to this power denied that there was human-to-human transmission of covid-19. For many months, it denied the possibility that the virus had a human origin and originated in a Wuhan facility. This is the organisation that we propose giving the power to intervene in national debates, and to close down discussion about the origins and appropriate response to pandemics under the guise of tackling misinformation and disinformation.
We should be concerned about the value of the World Health Organisation, given its record, and we should, I am afraid, have the same scepticism about our Government’s role. The trust that we all desperately want to have in healthcare has been badly tested by the experience of recent years. I echo many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about radicalisation; we both experienced that radicalisation over the course of the covid experience. We went from a position of trust in the state to profound scepticism.
I want to call attention to a new book that has come out, to which I contributed the afterword.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I do not think that we do advertising in here.
Danny Kruger
Okay. Forgive me. I will not advertise the book, although I derive no benefit from it, I should emphasise. It is written by the campaigners UsforThem, who did such good work in calling attention to the effect of the lockdowns on children, and who became radicalised through the experience of covid. UsforThem has written a very good book about the lack of accountability for the response to covid. I do not share some of its concerns about particular decisions made by particular officials or Ministers, but I absolutely share its concerns about the failure of accountability in the system as a whole.
The inquiry into the whole covid episode, which we are all watching, is performing a fairly useful function in identifying misdemeanours, confusions, and, in a rather whodunnit way, which Ministers, officials and advisers deserve individual blame. What we are really getting out of it, however, is evidence that the system as a whole failed. There is no point in identifying the culpability of individuals when the fundamental problem that the inquiry, and the experience of us all, demonstrates is that the British state failed.
On the regulations, as I said in April, during the last debate we had on this subject in this place, the problem during the whole covid episode was not the lack of international co-operation; there was a very high, remarkable, degree of that. Almost every country did exactly the same thing, following China’s example. What we did not have enough of was independent decision making at nation state level. The bits that worked at nation state level were times when individuals and communities on the ground, local government, local public services and local businesses took the initiative to collaborate and develop their own responses, and took responsibility for supporting communities. That is what we needed at the national level, too—more independent decision making, while obviously collaborating and sharing information about what works.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are committed to ensuring that British national sovereignty is reflected in the wording of any new treaty. I am afraid—we are familiar with this from current debates—that peppering legislation with the language of sovereignty is not sufficient. What we really need is the practice of sovereignty and the declaration of principles. Principles are only valid in so far as they are put into practice. We want actual practice of the principle of sovereignty through the treaty that emerges, and in any amendments to the regulations.
I conclude with four questions for the Minister, who I hope will be able to answer them. First, when will we see the next iteration of the draft regulations? I had understood that they were expected now. Secondly, which Minister is responsible for negotiating the treaty and the regulations? Is it him or a colleague? I would also be interested to know which civil servants are involved. We knew who the civil servants negotiating Brexit were. I wonder who has been delegated to the WHO and is working on our behalf there.
Thirdly, colleagues raised the issue of the WHO mandates potentially imposing a very significant bill on the taxpayer. Has work been done to quantify the potential cost to the taxpayer of implementing the requirements of the treaty? Finally, I appreciate that the Minister is probably not in a position to do so today, but will the Government commit to publishing their red lines—what they will and will not accept? Vague commitments to preserving sovereignty are not sufficient. What exactly will be acceptable and not? I appreciate that the negotiations are going on with other states, but I think it would be appropriate for our Government, at this advanced stage of the negotiations, to declare publicly what they are and are not prepared to cede, by way of our independence.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for setting out the issue, quite succinctly. I also thank her in her capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee for having allowed us a three-hour debate. A consequence is that once all the Back-Bench contributions have been heard, we will be able to hear in extenso how His Majesty’s official Opposition will deal with this issue. Even more importantly, we will be able to hear the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, say exactly what the Government are doing in response to each of the issues raised in this debate, which are of crucial importance to so many of our constituents.
One of the reasons why we are where we are today is that the response to the debate we had on a petition on this subject in April was, frankly, totally inadequate. It was full of generalisations, and vague suggestions that somehow it was all going to be all right in a day. It really was, “Why are you bothering the Government with this trivial material?” This issue goes to the heart of what the House is all about. It is about who is in charge. Are we, as a democratic Parliament, in charge of the laws of our country, and any attempt by the Government to give away control over those laws to an unaccountable international organisation? It is because of that concern that so many people have signed this petition and we are having this debate again today.
If my right hon. Friend the Minister does not address these issues today, people will say that the Government are not taking this seriously. That would be a disaster. Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry—what international organisation is not power hungry? The WHO certainly is—it is very difficult to get them back. There are ongoing discussions about where we stand in relation to international treaties and international law. There is the insidious development, following the recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary” international law. That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not.
Mr Francois
For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend agree that none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation—we might call it Wexit, for want of a better phrase—
Mr Francois
“Yet,” says another hon. Friend. But we want to be assured that the WHO cannot overrule this sovereign Parliament. That is a fundamental difference, is it not?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely; I agree with my right hon. Friend. We do not want to withdraw; there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information. Who would resent having access to data and information? Indeed, the essence of the relationship between a responsible society and its Government is that the Government should provide information to enable individuals to decide for themselves whether they want to take particular medicines, go on trips to particular countries, be vaccinated in a particular way, or whatever.
I see the proper role of the WHO as providing information to Governments across the globe. Those Governments can then decide for themselves what they like and do not like, having regard to the fact that the WHO’s chairman seems to have been imposed on it by the People’s Republic of China, and was strongly opposed by our Government. It seems very much as though the whole WHO is too beholden to China. The WHO is also beholden to some of its big donors; if one analyses how the WHO is funded, one sees that organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are significant supporters. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I think that is a good starting point when looking at these things. In the case of the WHO, there is too much evidence that the people paying the piper are calling the tune to too great an extent.
Once bitten, twice shy. Let us remind ourselves what happened during the pandemic. As others have mentioned, the WHO went into the pandemic with a policy of saying that lockdowns were not, and could not be, the right answer to a pandemic for all sorts of reasons. We can now see the adverse consequences that flowed from our country’s decision to have a lockdown, and we can compare that with what happened in Sweden. Then, during the early part of the pandemic discussions, and without any evidence being brought forward, the WHO suddenly changed its advice. Why? There is a suspicion that it was because of undue influence from the pressures that I have been describing. We will never know why it changed its advice. All we know is that somebody who changes their advice like that, without any evidence, should not tell us what to do. We should say, “If you want to change your advice, fine, but why do you change it? We don’t have to follow it.” However, under the proposed treaty amendments, we would have to follow it. That is obviously of great concern, because people can see what happened in the past, and that is potentially a guide to the future.
Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—it was not the only such drug—could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19. Strong evidence suggested that treatment with ivermectin might improve someone’s chances of survival by as much as 81%, but the WHO intervened at the behest of certain pharmaceutical companies that were in competition with the producers of ivermectin. It gave very dubious advice, to the effect that ivermectin should be used only in clinical trials.
To those who are not familiar with too much of the detail, I commend a book by Dr Pierre Kory, a distinguished physician and epidemiologist—I think he is an epidemiologist. He certainly deals with pulmonary and critical-care medicine; he is a specialist in that. He was in charge of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, and produced a book called “The War on Ivermectin”. It was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it. In the absence of such treatment, it was legitimate for experimental vaccines to be brought into play without undergoing the full process set out in the Licensing Act 2003, because there was there was nothing else. We were in the desperate situation of there being no other way out. Actually, however, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is not intending to use a prop. Let us leave it to Amazon to sell books.
Sir Christopher Chope
I was holding the book as I was about to quote from it, Dame Maria. I was not trying to advertise it, and I have not contributed to it, although I have to admit that it was given to me; I did not pay for it. However, so that I can put it down, and so that people do not have to look at me waving it around any more, I will get to the quote. On the WHO’s recommendation against ivermectin, Doctor Kory says:
“The corrupt anti-recommendation that followed read like this:
We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial. This recommendation applies to patients with any disease severity and any duration of symptoms. A recommendation to only use a drug in the setting of a clinical trials…is appropriate when there is very low certainty evidence and future research has a large potential for reducing uncertainty about the effects of the intervention and for doing so at reasonable cost.”
That recommendation was given in the knowledge, as a result of work that had been done that, there was an 81% reduced risk of dying. Indeed, the reason that India was very successful in reducing the number of deaths immediately after the pandemic started was that it was using ivermectin in extenso. In the eyes of Dr Kory, the WHO’s refusal to endorse a remedy or treatment contributed to the loss of
“millions of lives across the world.”
Those are quotes from his book, which I will now put down, Dame Maria.
When I first read about that aspect of the work of the WHO, and the way in which it had been corruptly influenced by drug companies that had a direct financial interest in discrediting ivermectin, it raised alarm bells. I thought, “Hang on a minute, why is the WHO engaged in this sort of activity?” I hope that the Government will start looking really seriously, and sceptically, at the work of the WHO, and at the extent to which it is unduly influenced by external factors. A lot of its work is not based on straight science, but is actually political. Reference has already been made to the fact that the WHO does not seem too interested in getting to the bottom of how covid-19 began. Did it begin in a laboratory in China? That narrative would not fit in with the WHO effectively being under the control of the Chinese Government.
Philip Davies
This comes back to the point that our hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) made so effectively. The WHO said, prematurely, that it was “extremely unlikely” that covid started from a lab leak. Then, over a year later, I think, the director general said there had been a “premature push” to rule out the lab leak theory. Does that not confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that there are clearly external factors at play when the WHO gives its advice, and that it should be treated with caution, not as gospel?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention.
Let us reflect for a minute on what other countries are doing. I would have thought that we were one of the proudest sovereign countries, determined to ensure that our Parliament retains control over these sorts of issues; but we seem to have been sidelined by Slovakia, Estonia and New Zealand. If those countries have already come out publicly with their scepticism about the process, why have our Government been sitting on their hands, not saying anything? Instead of being mum about this, I hope that our Government will now say, “By all means, let’s keep the WHO as a body that provides advice, but under no circumstances will we sign up to anything that will give them control over our lives.” It was bad enough that we effectively had a requirement in this country that people should take vaccines—that there was a vaccine mandate.
I spoke the other day to a constituent of mine who worked as an inspector of care homes. He was told that he would lose his job if he refused to be vaccinated; he still refused, and he lost his job. I am pleased to say that he won his case in the tribunal, but that was the sort of consequence for people who fell foul of vaccine mandates. The prospect that it would not be our Government telling people what vaccines they had to take, but rather some unaccountable, foreign international organisation, is even more disturbing.
These are really important issues, and I hope that my friends in Government will take them a lot more seriously than they seem to have done up to now. It is still not clear whether the Department of Health and Social Care or the Foreign Office is in charge of these issues. As has been said, we need to know who among the Ministers will get down to the detail, argue the toss, and ensure that the WHO continues as an organisation but does not take control of our lives.
[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]
I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir George. If I sit down now, we will have just shy of two hours in which to hear from the Front Benchers—it is significant that there does not seem to be any SNP spokesman here—on what action they will take to address the concerns of more than 100,000 petitioners on this subject, and a whole lot of other people besides.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George, on this debate responding to the e-petition 635904, which relates to the International Health Regulations 2005. It is wonderful to see so many of the public in attendance.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is Chair of the Petitions Committee, for opening the debate. I also thank the right hon. Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for their contributions. I was in the debate responding to a similar petition regarding the draft treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in April; I hope hon. Members who were also in that debate will forgive me for retreading some similar ground.
The covid pandemic was one of the most surreal and seismic events of our lifetimes. Hundreds of thousands of people died here in the United Kingdom and millions more were extremely ill. There are perhaps two million people still living restricted lives, who are now in their fourth year of shielding because they are clinically vulnerable to the virus—we should not forget them. As our economy and public services still recover, it is vital that we learn lessons and take steps to strengthen our resilience for the future, and I hope that the inquiry taking place at the moment will be a valuable resource in that respect. Our NHS was badly prepared, the Government’s handling of public health measures was chaotic, and we jumped in and out of lockdowns. Some measures, such as guidance issued to care homes and eat out to help out, were raised as concerns by Members of this House, including myself.
As we discuss the petition, we must recognise the international dimension of the pandemic, too. Deadly infectious diseases do not respect borders. It is therefore squarely in our interests to co-operate with other nations and support efforts to co-ordinate the global public health response. The lesson of the pandemic was that no one is safe until everyone is safe, so it is clear that global co-operation on pandemics and biological threats needs to be strengthened. Labour absolutely supports the principle of legally binding international health regulations that define the obligations of countries in handling pandemic-level threats. That is critical to our national health security.
The international health regulations under discussion have of course existed in various forms since the 1960s. The latest iteration came into force in 2007. As they stand, the regulations obligate the 196 state parties to develop national core public health capacities for the detection, assessment, control and reporting of public health events. At some international ports, airports and ground crossings, they require parties to notify the WHO of serious diseases with risk of international spread. They set some of the human rights and other protections for any of us travelling abroad—protection of personal health data, for example. Those requirements are hardly controversial, apart from the fact that they were not on their own sufficient to prevent the spread of covid-19 around the world. That is why we think they must be strengthened. Climate change and globalisation mean that biological threats are only becoming more common, and future pandemics could be deadlier than covid-19. If another epidemic strikes with that same infectious potential, we must ensure that we are better prepared.
The subject of debate today is how amendments to the international health regulations and the pandemic accord under negotiation at the World Health Organisation might actually impact the United Kingdom’s public health policy in the future. Earlier I mentioned some of the measures taken by the UK Government during the pandemic, ranging from interventions like eat out to help out to the three national lockdowns. The variety of those policies and how they compare with some of the other 195 countries who are also signed up to the international health regulations shows that the UK and other countries were able to exercise considerable discretion in their domestic responses to the pandemic.
It is important to emphasise this fact: the e-petition we are discussing asks for Parliament to vote on amendments to the IHR, which are being negotiated alongside the draft text of the pandemic accord that we debated here in April. It raises concern that Parliament has not voted on an amendment to which the UK Government agreed and that was adopted at the World Health Assembly last year. That is a process-related amendment under article 59 of the international health regulations, which reduces the time for future amendments to come into force to 12 months. Of course, until any such future amendments are agreed, it will have no impact on the United Kingdom.
In any case, the principles that protect our national sovereignty will remain. The democratically elected Government are responsible for negotiating, signing, ratifying, amending and withdrawing from international treaties under their prerogative powers. Any legislation, if necessary to implement the regulations, would have to go through the proper parliamentary process. No international treaty can, by itself, change United Kingdom law. As for the future amendment, it makes sense that, as the only international treaty on infectious diseases, changes to the IHR are considered alongside the draft text for the pandemic accord. Of course, as negotiations are still under way, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Mr Francois
If what the hon. Lady says is true, why has Parliament just spent two weeks arguing about Rwanda? Can I ask her a direct question? She has heard many concerns expressed from the Conservative Benches about these proposed amendments. With the exception of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who introduced the debate, not a single Labour Back Bencher has even been present, let alone contributed. Here is the question: would a future Labour Government be minded to accept the spirit of those amendments to the WHO treaty or to oppose them? Our position is very clear. What is the hon. Lady’s?
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I understand that feelings are running high and people have areas that they want to explore, but I hope that any further interventions are brief.
Preet Kaur Gill
We all know that Rwanda is just a gimmick by this Government, and I think that I have already set out my position very clearly. I will continue to make my remarks so that the Government are absolutely clear as to where we stand on this issue.
I am pleased that the zero draft highlighted that states must retain sovereignty, and that the implementation of the regulations
“shall be with the full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”.
I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to update us on the progress being made in negotiations over the amendments and the draft text. Can he reassure our constituents that the Government would not sign up to anything that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures?
John Redwood
I do not understand the hon. Lady’s argument. This amendment to the regulations would mean that the WHO could decide that there was a health crisis in our country, whether we thought there was or not. It could then tell us how we had to handle it in far more detail than its advisory work during the covid crisis—it would be mandatory. What does she not understand about that and why does she not disagree with it? [Interruption.]
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I say to those in the Public Gallery that I know that there are strong feelings and that they have come here with a great deal of interest in the subject, but they need to be quiet. It is not an occasion for applause or shouting out. I would be grateful if people respected that. Thank you.
Preet Kaur Gill
I think that I have made my position really clear, hence my question to the Minister. Our constituents want reassurance that the Government would not sign up to anything that would compromise our ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. Nothing has been agreed. Today is an opportunity to hear from the Minister about how those negotiations are going forward and what amendments have been accepted. I also want to hear from the Minister.
Preet Kaur Gill
I am not taking any more interventions. The reality is that although the pandemic is over now, the threat is not over. We must never leave our country with such a soft underbelly again. We strongly support efforts to strengthen the international legal framework to prevent, protect against, control and respond to cross-border health threats. It is squarely in our interests and integral to our security to encourage other countries to commit to do the same.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George, and I am grateful to the British public and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for raising the important issues covered in the e-petition we are considering today. I start by thanking for their contributions the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her remarks. I am only surprised not to see our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) here, although I am sure that he would be if he were able.
We have held a similar debate on this matter already. However, this debate is slightly different from the one we had in April; the matter before us is whether the House should vote on amendments to the international health regulations. That has stirred discussions both in this place and outside because it relates to two vital aspects of our governance: our sovereignty and our national interest. On both, I am pleased to offer assurances to colleagues and the public that I am satisfied that our approach to the negotiations safeguards our national interest without compromising our sovereignty. I will set out why I believe that before turning to the specific questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the debate.
Why are the negotiations in our national interest? Because the international health regulations do not just exist to protect others from health threats: they directly benefit the UK and help to keep our people safe. The last decade has shown that diseases such as covid, mpox and Ebola do not respect borders. In the case of other health threats, such as the recent case of botulism in France, the IHR allowed us to swiftly engage with French officials to identify and follow up with exposed UK citizens. When Vladimir Putin committed an act of terror on our own soil, the IHR helped to slow and stop the spread in Salisbury. The IHR provide international standards for what it means in practice for each WHO member state to prepare for, detect, prevent and respond to public health events.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for the speech he is making. The point he is actually making is that the IHR are currently working perfectly adequately—in which case, why do we need to amend them?
Andrew Stephenson
The IHR are working well. However, as a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends said in the debate, there has been lots of criticism of how they worked. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, our right hon. Friend who is no longer in this place—Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister—was one of the leading voices in saying that we should update the IHR, because we surely need to learn lessons and move forwards.
I believe that there is mutual interest—interest for us and for other countries—in working together. One example is delivering a sensitive surveillance system providing an early warning of potential threats to inform decisions that national Governments will make during public health events and emergencies.
Mr Francois
The House has already heard that we may have to vote on the amendments, along with others, by the end of May 2024. It is possible that by then we will already have had a general election. The House has heard very plainly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) that the Labour party would be minded to support all the amendments; when we challenged her, she stopped taking interventions. Labour would back these amendments if it was in government. What would the Conservative party do?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I genuinely believe that a lot here is in all our interests, and I do not want to turn this into a party political ding-dong. I genuinely believe that having us in Government leading the negotiations and getting them settled before any general election is firmly in the UK’s national interest, because I believe that we will deliver a treaty that is in the interests of all our citizens and respects national sovereignty. However, I very much hope that an incoming Labour Government would do the same. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we need to make rapid international progress to agree any revisions to the IHR—because I believe that we are in a good place to do that now and should move swiftly, rather than kicking it into the long grass. The last pandemic taught us that trying to make things up as we go along was not the best course of action. Laying some good foundations and providing some better certainty on how things will be dealt with is the best way forwards.
Sir Christopher Chope
Surely the regulations and the changes are not just one block that we either accept or reject. The Government can deal with each proposed amended change seriatim—one by one. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend will spell out, in response to the points that have been made, exactly which of the amendments he supports and which ones he does not.
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he will remember that we did not provide a running commentary on the Brexit negotiations. We do not provide a running commentary on our trade negotiations. We do not believe that is in the national interest. Indeed, it is very clear that no text in the latest draft of the accord, published in October and available on the WHO website, has been agreed yet. The whole text is still under negotiation. The draft is just a basis for negotiations, and it will evolve. There are areas of the new draft that we clearly reject and there are areas that we would like to make even stronger. This is an active negotiation between 193 member states to come up with revisions to the IHR that we all believe, by mutual consensus, will be in our global interest.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Would the Minister be kind enough to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)? Who is actually negotiating on this country’s behalf, and which Minister has ultimate responsibility?
Andrew Stephenson
The negotiations are being led by civil servants across Whitehall. [Interruption.]
Andrew Stephenson
I do not believe it is right to name those civil servants. I am the overall lead on this in the Department of Health and Social Care. I am working closely and have already met with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Many other Government Departments will also have a very clear interest in this, including the life sciences Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Any treaty agreed will of course be subject to cross-Government write-rounds in the usual fashion, to agree a UK-wide position. It is fair to say that there will not just be one pair of eyes from the ministerial ranks looking at this. There will be multiple pairs of eyes looking at this from across Government to ensure that when we get to a deal, it is a deal that can be agreed across Government and that we believe is in the UK national interest.
John Redwood
The possibility that the language may shift from saying “may” to “shall” is fundamental. I welcome all that the Minister has said about the current collaboration. I am glad it is working so well, but that is based on advice and urging, rather than requirement. It seems to me that this is just like the British people voting for the Common Market with the assurance that we had a veto on any law we did not like, but then somebody came along and took the vetoes away without seeking the British people’s permission, and the relationship went wrong from thereon. This could do exactly the same to the WHO, if we take away the veto.
Andrew Stephenson
I hear where my right hon. Friend comes from and I share his concern. As I hope he will recognise, the WHO is led by its 193 member states, which are currently negotiating this. All international health regulations to date have been agreed by consensus, and we would hope that any changes to the regulations are also agreed by consensus. As I say, there are many amendments and parts of the draft that we would not agree to in their current form. I believe these negotiations will hopefully get us into a position—because I believe it is in all our interests and in the national interest—to agree revisions to the IHR. That has to be done through negotiation and consensus. I think that having an approaching deadline focuses minds, and I think it is the right thing to do.
I will give another concrete example of why I believe this is important. During the pandemic, the genomic data shared by our friends in India and elsewhere helped us to tailor vaccines as new variants emerged around the globe. We all saw over the pandemic that, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, no one is safe until everyone is safe and that global problems require global solutions.
The best way to protect the UK from the next pandemic is by ensuring all WHO members can contain and respond effectively to public health events through compliance with strengthened IHR. Targeted amendments to the IHR will further strengthen our global health security, by helping Governments plan together, detect pathogens swiftly, and share data where helpful and necessary. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses in the implementation of the IHR for global health emergency response. For example, covid demonstrated that the IHR could be strengthened through a more effective early-warning system with a rapid risk assessment trigger for appropriate responses to public health threats.
Philip Davies
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister not fear that what happens in the World Health Organisation negotiations will be very similar to what happens at things such as COP26, COP27 and COP28, at which all these countries sign up to something—most of them knowing full well they have absolutely no intention of following what they have signed up to—and we are left following the agreements when other countries do not even bother?
Andrew Stephenson
I hope that no Government would sign up to any treaty that it will not follow. I agree that, in a whole range of areas, countries around the world have sometimes not fulfilled their part of international obligations, but the UK Government will certainly not sign up to something that we do not believe is fair and proportionate, that is not our national interests and that we would not seek to follow ourselves. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that other countries have not followed regulations in the past, and there is no point in our passing strengthened regulations if we do not believe that other countries will follow them. We believe that the regulations are designed to prevent and control the international spread of disease. They are limited to public health risks and designed to avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. That is why we support the process of agreeing targeted amendments to the IHR as an important way to better prepare for future global health emergencies.
Sir Christopher Chope
Can the Minister explain the process in relation to the amendments? He talks about consensus, but what happens if this country does not get its way in relation to some of the amendments that it opposes? Would that mean that, if those amendments are incorporated in the final text, we can and will opt out of them?
Andrew Stephenson
Yes, that is exactly what consensus means. To be clear, the WHO secretariat is supporting both processes by hosting the international negotiating body and the working group on amendments to the regulations, and by supporting the chairs to prepare texts and answer questions from member states. Both negotiations, however, are member state-led processes. It is member states that are negotiating; it is not the World Health Organisation. I completely appreciate that some see this as a WHO power grab, but it is important to remember that it is a member state-led process.
We came together with other nations through the World Health Organisation to agree a process to negotiate targeted amendments to the IHR at the 75th World Health Assembly back in May 2022. By consensus, we adopted process-related amendments under article 59 of the regulations. The UK supported those amendments because they increased the timeliness of member states’ compliance with future amendments to the IHR. That will better protect us from future global health emergencies. As part of the agreed process, member states could submit proposed amendments for consideration, and to that end a working group, made up of all WHO member states, through which the amendments would be negotiated and agreed was created.
Andrew Bridgen
The Minister is being generous with his time. The crucial question on which the Chamber and the public would like an answer from the Minister, who is speaking on behalf of the Government who are negotiating the instruments, is whether the Minister believes that the WHO guidance—recommendations, as they were—becoming mandatory under amendments to article 1 and new article 13A of the treaty are compatible with retaining UK sovereignty.
Andrew Stephenson
I think that that was covered in the previous debate and has been covered by various Ministers. We have been clear from the outset of the process that we will not agree to any amendments that cede UK sovereignty. If the UK Government accept an IHR amendment that we have negotiated with our international partners, then, depending on the context of that amendment, changes to international law may be required. In those instances, the Government would prepare any draft legislation, and Parliament would vote on it in the usual way.
It is important to remember that, in and of themselves, IHR amendments and the new pandemic accord do not change the power of UK law. If required, we would ourselves change UK law through our sovereign Parliament, to reflect our international obligations under the IHR amendments. Let me be clear: in all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged and we would remain in control of any future domestic decisions on national public health measures.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way so often. To be clear and to follow on from my earlier question, he has put on the record that we have a right to opt out of any amendments with which the UK does not agree. That is reassuring. On that basis, if an amendment were to be voted on by the WHO to say that it could impose a lockdown on the United Kingdom without our approval, will the Minister give a commitment that we would opt out of it?
Andrew Stephenson
I can give a categorical reassurance to my right hon. Friend that that is a red line for the UK Government. We would never allow the World Health Organisation to impose a lockdown in the UK. That is a clear red line for us. I cannot think of any Minister who would agree to such a request.
I can confidently say to my colleagues—as someone who campaigned for Brexit and who has helped to deliver Brexit in this place—that I am passionate about this country’s sovereignty. I believe that the Government’s position needs to be crystal clear and it is one that I endorse. We support the member state-led process of agreeing targeted amendments to the IHR and the new pandemic accord for the sake of global health preparedness, but we will not agree in any circumstances to provisions that would cede sovereignty to the WHO. That includes the ability to make decisions on national public health measures, whether lockdowns, which we just mentioned, or vaccine programmes.
Philip Davies
The Minister will understand people’s nervousness about this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to, in the 1971 White Paper Ted Heath said that there was no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty by joining the Common Market. We saw how that went. My point, and what I am worried about, is whether the Government will have to bring forward proposals that the WHO insists on even if they do not like it, and so bring the power of Government voting to that decision. That is what I worry about, that Parliament will still decide, but that the Government will be forced to bring forward measures in Parliament, even though they may not necessarily agree with them.
Andrew Stephenson
I reiterate: this is a member state-led process, with 193 member states negotiating. It will be a difficult negotiation, but all previous regulations have been agreed by consensus. If the text ends up in a position where the UK Government do not feel that we can sign up to it, the other member states may decide to proceed, but they will not be regulations that we are bound by, because we will not agree to them. This is an evolving situation and we have agreed a pathway for negotiations. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the text and the amendments are available online.
May I turn to some of the contributions? I will start with those paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford in paying tribute to his wife and other NHS staff, who did an incredible job during the pandemic. Sometimes, when debating technical issues such as this, we can overlook their incredible contribution, but it is right what my right hon. Friend said today. He also talked about the importance of data sharing globally, which I think we would all agree is vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes asked when the next iteration of the text will be available. No new texts or amendments have been agreed yet, so there is nothing further to be shared. However, we expect negotiations to continue until May 2024, when member states will agree completion at the World Health Assembly. I am actively exploring ways in which I can keep the House informed of further developments, although as I say, the standing position of the Government on such issues is that we do not do a running commentary on negotiations. I am actively looking at what more we can do to keep Members informed.
That leads me on to another question that my hon. Friend asked about the costs of these measures. Obviously, as we have not agreed the provisions of the treaty, we cannot yet estimate how much it might cost and whether we would publish our red lines. Unfortunately, as I say, I will decline to say more on red lines now; I have set out one clear red line today and we have a very clear red line on sovereignty. However, I do not believe that we should run through these negotiations in public; I believe that we should give our negotiators time to reach as much international consensus as possible.
Mr Hollobone
The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. One of the lessons from the Brexit negotiations was that civil servants in the room negotiating were not always following the ministerial line, so may I encourage my right hon. Friend to go himself to the negotiations, repeat what he has told the House today, and make sure that the civil servants who are in the room when he leaves get the message that he has just delivered?
Andrew Stephenson
I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. Some of the civil servants involved in the negotiation have already heard clearly from me, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, and my hon. Friend the life sciences Minister about various red lines and other things that we are very clear about, so there is clear ministerial input. There will be a part in this process where Ministers can get involved, but I will certainly look into what my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) suggests and what more I can do to ensure that UK sovereignty is in no way compromised, so that I can continue to provide further reassurance to all those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today.
We all want—well, maybe not all of us, but I believe the Government want a strong World Health Organisation that is fit for purpose and able to respond rapidly to global health challenges and future threats. The UK is working with our international partners to shape the WHO in that way.
Our priorities for the amendments and for the accord are global in scope but they are also in pursuit of our national interest. It is in our national interest to prevent another pandemic. Should—God forbid—another pandemic should occur, it is in the national interest to co-operate with others to slow and stop its spread. In these negotiations, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that I would never countenance acting contrary to our national interest. We will protect our country from future public health emergencies without ceding an inch of sovereignty.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 635904, relating to the International Health Regulations 2005.
Written Statements
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Leakage
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The UK is taking rapid action on industrial decarbonisation to meet net zero. This includes the use of carbon pricing through the UK emissions trading scheme (UK ETS). This action creates risk of carbon leakage as not all jurisdictions are moving at the same pace. Carbon leakage is the movement of production and associated emissions from one country to another due to different levels of decarbonisation effort through carbon pricing and climate regulation. It can undermine efforts to reduce global emissions and curtail private investment in decarbonisation—compromising efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
The best solution to carbon leakage is an international one. The UK and many others around the world are working to reduce carbon leakage risk by pushing for ambitious climate action. But progress on international solutions takes time.
The Government therefore consulted on a range of potential domestic carbon leakage mitigation measures. The consultation “Addressing carbon leakage risk to support decarbonisation” ran from 30 March 2023 to 22 June 2023. It covered potential policies including a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), product standards, and other policy measures to help grow the market for low-emission products, as well as emissions reporting that could support the implementation of carbon leakage policy more broadly.
After careful review and giving thorough consideration to the potential implications, the Government have today published a summary of responses and Government response to the consultation, and confirm that:
The Government will implement a CBAM by January 2027. The UK CBAM will place a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported to the UK from the aluminium, cement, ceramics, fertilizer, glass, hydrogen, iron and steel sectors.
A CBAM will ensure that UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions rather than displacing carbon emissions overseas. It will give UK industry confidence to invest in the knowledge that its decarbonisation efforts will not be undermined.
The UK CBAM will work cohesively with the UK ETS to ensure imported products are subject to a carbon price comparable to that incurred by UK production.
The UK ETS Authority has today also published a consultation on the approach to UK ETS free allocation. The UK Government will work with the UK ETS Authority on interactions between a CBAM and provision of free allowances under the UK ETS.
The CBAM will be designed so that other countries which also have a carbon price will see the CBAM liability on their goods adjusted accordingly.
The scope of the CBAM will be kept under review, and delivery will be subject to further consultation in 2024.
The UK CBAM will be designed in compliance with the UK’s international obligations.
Alongside a CBAM, Government will work with industry to establish voluntary product standards that businesses could choose to adopt to help promote their low carbon products to consumers.
The Government will also seek to develop an embodied emissions reporting framework that could serve future carbon leakage and decarbonisation policies.
Voluntary standards and the embodied emissions reporting framework will be subject to further technical consultation in 2024.
The summary of responses and Government response to the consultation are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/addressing-carbon-leakage-risk-to-support-decarbonisation. A copy of the document will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS146]
Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Annual Report 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The following joint statement is released on behalf of myself and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
The events of the last 12 months have continued to highlight the vital work our armed forces carry out. Around the world they work with our allies to defend the global community and support vital humanitarian work. At home they protect our borders, provide military aid to our national communities, and lead epoch-defining state ceremonial events including Their Majesties’ coronations. More than ever, our armed forces community is central to our national life and represents who we are as a country, and we are delighted that public support for our soldiers, sailors, aviators and their families remains consistently high.
We are honoured to introduce the 2023 armed forces covenant and veterans report. This is the primary tool by which the Government are held to account in delivering the covenant. It includes contributions from across the MOD, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, wider Government Departments, and the devolved Administrations. It is how the Government showcase the extraordinary work that is done throughout the UK to support our armed forces community.
Highlights from this year’s report include:
Improvements to service accommodation under the Defence Command Paper refresh, published in July 2023, which announced an additional £400,000,000 of funding over two years for programmes to address damp and mould issues, improve thermal efficiency and to carry out refurbishment works to unoccupied homes.
The modernisation of service families accommodation policy means over 5,200 families in committed relationships (who are not married or civil partnered), can live together in service families accommodation.
Funding to support the armed forces families strategy continues under the armed forces families fund, with funding of over £900,000 for early years projects, nearly £500,000 for the new supporting partners programme and over £2,000,000 for what was the education support fund.
Following the successful launch of the wraparound childcare scheme in September 2022, there are over 5,500 service families taking advantage of the funding toward their childcare costs.
The Op COMMUNITY pilot is underway across England. Op COMMUNITY is a point of contact for the armed forces community to offer support and guidance as they navigate NHS services.
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs, in partnership with the armed forces covenant fund trust, invested £3,000,000 into the veterans mobility fund
Launch of Op FORTITUDE, to create a pathway for veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness.
Launch of Op RESTORE, to create a clear physical health pathway in the NHS for our veterans.
The number of armed forces covenant signatories has seen substantial growth as of 30
September 2023 with some 10,975 total signatories.
This report is a collaborative effort with input from service providers and professionals from a diverse array of backgrounds. I would like to thank colleagues across central Government, the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and those at every level and from every sector who are continuing to drive forward the work of the covenant and the strategy for our veterans in support of our armed forces community. We are also grateful to the representatives of the key external stakeholders who provided their independent observations.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-12-18/HCWS145/.
Children’s Social Care
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
The Prime Minister has been clear about the importance of family in ensuring children can thrive and this Government are determined to put families at the heart of society. I am therefore pleased to update the House on our progress to reform children’s social care to ensure that children and families get the support they need at the right time.
Earlier this year we set out bold and ambitious plans to reform children’s social care through “Stable Homes. Built on Love”. Our strategy, backed by £200 million investment, responded to reviews that provided a vision of how to do things differently—including the independent review of children’s social care and the national review into the murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson. These reviews were clear that we must reform services to improve the outcomes of children and families. Our strategy set a vision for a transformed children’s social care system that makes sure families get the help they need, when they need it.
We have moved a step closer to realising this vision, and honour commitments to publish:
The first ever national kinship strategy, “Championing Kinship Care” which sets out support for family networks providing loving and stable homes to children.
A new children’s social care national framework which sets out the purpose, principles and outcomes that should be achieved in children’s social care.
Updated statutory guidance, “Working Together”, which sets out how to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
•A data strategy which sets out the long-term plan for transforming data in children’s social care.
Through this statement I update the House on each publication, copies of which have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses. I am also informing Members that we will also increase our budget to deliver fostering reforms by up to £8.5 million, taking the total investment to £36 million. This is the largest ever investment in fostering in England and will support us to roll out recruitment and retention programmes to over 60% of all local authorities in England.
We want children who cannot live with their parents to be supported to live with people who are known to them and love them. Kinship carers need our support and backing to offer this care and love so that they can in turn help us achieve our aim of keeping more families together. Our kinship strategy, “Championing Kinship Care”, sets out the practical and financial support we will provide to kinship families, and is backed by £20 million investment. It details how we will provide further support for kinship carers, including launching a financial allowance pathfinder which will provide more financial stability for children growing up in kinship care and sets out our plans to champion the outcomes of children in kinship care in schools. Prioritising kinship care requires us all to champion, support and empower kinship families.
We must also deliver excellent standards of practice to improve outcomes for children, raise aspirations and ensure partnership working across all agencies, including police, health and education. We have published the children’s social care national framework as statutory guidance. It brings together the purpose, principles, enablers, and outcomes that children’s social care should achieve so children, young people and families can thrive. We want all local authorities to consider how their local offer of support makes a real difference to the lives of children, young people and their families.
Our plans for reform have always recognised the central importance of children’s welfare. Children must be kept safe, and this means we must take swift and decisive action to protect them when they are not. Our multi-agency statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, has been updated and replaces a version from 2018. We want all parts of the system to embed new child protection standards for practitioners, and to use and deploy a multi-disciplinary workforce to provide co-ordinated help, support and protection.
Lastly, the data we collect about children and families and the information recorded about their lives and interactions with children’s social care is sensitive and personal. This data is held in many places, which makes bringing it together challenging. Our digital and data strategy sets out the foundations needed to embark on ambitious transformation, and the actions we will take between 2023-2025. We will also publish a children’s social care dashboard next year to understand progress towards the outcomes in the national framework.
The reviews from last year called for an urgent, fundamental and system-wide transformation of children’s social care. Today we reaffirm our commitment to reform. Transforming how we operate depends on the support and commitment of local Government leadership, leaders across children’s social care, safeguarding partners, relevant agencies and all practitioners. That is why we have also published a reform statement for local authorities and partners in the system.
Today is a time to reflect on the thousands of people who have shared their views since we embarked on reform, including children and families, kinship carers, social workers, dedicated professionals and practitioners and charities. I give my personal thanks to every individual in helping us reach this milestone in our reform journey.
[HCWS144]
Child Safeguarding Practice Review: Government Response
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Today, the Government have published our response to the recommendations made by the child safeguarding practice review panel (the panel) review into safeguarding of children with disabilities and complex health needs in residential settings, published in April 2023. I would like to thank the panel for their vital work and their continued focus on improving learning, practice, and outcomes for children. I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the review for their commitment, professionalism, and expertise. A copy of the response has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The abuse and neglect of disabled children in three dual-registered children’s homes and residential special schools was appalling. The settings have closed; as criminal investigations are ongoing; I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the case.
No system, however robust, can fully eliminate all risk of harm and abuse. Those committing abuse were deliberately concealing their actions. Nevertheless, the panel’s report highlights system-wide issues which allowed abuse to be concealed for too long. The owners of the three dual-registered settings and providers of care permitted inadequate leadership and management, poor-quality training, poor support and supervision of the workforce and inadequate compliance with statutory requirements. Statutory and partner agencies demonstrated a lack of oversight, limited professional curiosity, poorly exercised accountability, failures in information sharing and lack of rigour in regulation and inspection practice.
The panel’s recommendations reinforce our determination that every child and their family should get the right support at the right time. Disabled children should not be placed far from home. Local agencies need to work together so that children can be supported as close to home as possible, however complex their needs. The failures identified by the panel demonstrate the urgent need for the transformation of children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) that we are driving forward in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. Our strategy for children’s social care, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, and NHS England’s long-term plan aim to improve the lives of disabled children and will deliver fundamental change. These reforms will ensure that disabled children receive the best support, safeguarding and protection, and care from all those who are looking after them.
Our response recognises the three key principles for disabled children to thrive and fulfil their potential:
All relevant agencies need to assure themselves that they are meeting their duties and promoting good practice to keep disabled children with complex health needs in residential care safe and are cared for.
We need to reform the care system so that all disabled children in residential settings have a stable, loving home that is safe and close to their friends and family.
We must provide the right support, in the right place and at the right time to disabled children and their families, so families are better supported to meet children’s needs at home and in the community, and we must reduce the institutionalisation of disabled children.
I have today also written to providers of residential settings, local authority chief executives, directors of children’s services, lead integrated care board members, police chief constables, Ofsted, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) asking them to review their current working practices. Copies of these letters have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The response we have published today sets out the steps that we are taking to address the failings identified by the panel. These actions include:
Asking Ofsted and the CQC to work with us to consider further what we could do better and differently now to safeguard disabled children living in regulated children’s homes. We are asking Ofsted and CQC to review the recommendation for joint inspections including any regulatory changes required and cost implications.
Setting a new standard on the provision of non-instructed advocacy for children with complex communication needs. We are strengthening the independence of advocacy services and improving the way these services are promoted so that advocacy support is more widely available to children and young people.
Exploring proposals for introducing professional registration of the children’s homes workforce as well as considering the development of a new Knowledge and Skills Statement and a national leadership programme to support recruitment of new managers.
Considering how information sharing, multi-agency leadership, safeguarding partnerships and cross-government working can be improved to support safeguarding. Committing to work with local authorities and Ofsted to review what changes need to be made to the responsibilities of local authority designated officers (LADO).
Asking the Law Commission to carry out a review of the legislation for disabled children, to inform future changes to legislation and/or guidance.
Consulting on updated statutory guidance “Working Together to Safeguard Children” to set out clear roles and responsibilities for safeguarding partners (police, health, and local authorities) to ensure they work more effectively together.
Many people work hard to care for our most vulnerable children and young people. However, I share the panel’s concern that—too often—agencies act in isolation when the children with the most complex needs require a holistic response. I am committed to working with my colleagues across Government to improve multi-agency and multi-disciplinary working to help, support and protect children.
Ensuring the safety and well-being of disabled children with complex health needs is one of the Government’s most fundamental priorities. We are committed to working with our partners and across Government to ensure all children are kept safe, have their needs met and receive the best support to fulfil their potential.
[HCWS143]
Energy Efficiency and Clean Heat Capital Funding
(11 months, 1 week 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 the 2022 autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that new Government funding worth £6 billion will be made available from 2025 to 2028 to support households, businesses and the public sector drive improvements in energy efficiency and clean heating to bring down bills and emissions.
I can today announce to the House how this money is being allocated between the following schemes.
Nearly £2.5 billion of this funding will be allocated to mass market support for the electrification of heat and energy efficiency. This includes the boiler upgrade scheme (BUS), a new £400 million energy efficiency grant, and a new local authority led retrofit scheme.
Breakdown of the £6,050 million—schemes and total amount allocated for period 2025-28
Universal heat pump insulation support: boiler upgrade scheme—£1,545 million
Heat pump innovation accelerator competition—£15 million
Universal support with measure to help reduce energy bills and make more homes heat pump ready: energy efficiency grant—£400 million
Local Authority led support for low-income households to retrofit homes: local authority retrofit scheme—£500 million
Support installing low-carbon heating and energy efficiency in social housing—which requires match funding from social housing landlords: social housing decarbonisation fund (SHDF)—£1,255 million
Heat network infrastructure: green heat network fund (GHNF); heat network efficiency scheme (HNES)—£530 million
Support public sector organisations (e.g. schools, hospitals) with the capital cost of installing low-carbon heating by covering the difference between a replacement fossil fuel system and a low-carbon alternative: public sector decarbonisation scheme (PSDS)—£1,170 million
Industrial energy transformation fund (IETF)—£225 million
Support to drive industrial energy efficiency and decarbonisation (detail to be announced later subject to further policy development)—£410 million
[HCWS319]
UK Emissions Trading Scheme
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:
The Government and our partners in the devolved Administrations are today delivering on commitments to continue the development of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS), a key part of our approach to achieving net zero by 2050. The scheme puts a limit on the emissions of the power, industrial and aviation sectors, and requires participants to obtain carbon allowances to cover their emissions. In doing so, it creates a carbon price signal that incentivises investment in decarbonisation.
In July the UK ETS Authority published an ambitious package of reforms to the scheme, to ensure it supports our net zero goals.
Today, building on those reforms, the UK ETS Authority has launched consultations on changes to market and free allocation policies within the scheme. It has also published a statutory review of the scheme’s operation since its launch in 2021, and a joint response to the UK ETS recommendations in the independent review of net zero.
Review of market policies
The markets consultation explores how to strengthen the functioning of the scheme by supporting market stability and providing long-term confidence for participants. Following a call for evidence last year, it seeks views on a range of potential market policies, including a new supply adjustment mechanism to support the long-term operation of the scheme.
The consultation also considers potential changes to the existing auction reserve price, which sets a minimum auction price of £22 for carbon allowances; and the cost containment mechanism, which allows the UK ETS Authority to intervene if the carbon price rises rapidly over a sustained period.
Free allocation review
The consultation on free allocation is the final stage of a comprehensive review of this vital area of the scheme. It offers UK industries an opportunity to shape UK ETS policy and ensure the scheme can support them in the transition to net zero.
Industries that face a risk of carbon leakage are supported under the UK ETS through free emissions allowances, to ensure their efforts to decarbonise are not undermined. Carbon leakage refers to the movement of production and associated emissions from one country to another, due to different decarbonisation policies, for example carbon pricing and climate regulation.
The consultation explores how to better target free allocations for those most at risk of carbon leakage. It follows the changes to the industry cap (the share of overall allowances put aside for free allocation) announced in July and considers how key UK-specific factors are accounted for when calculating free allocations from 2026. It also consults on new proposals that will ensure closed industrial sites under the scheme do not continue to receive free allocations after they have ceased activity.
Addressing carbon leakage risk to support decarbonisation
In parallel to the free allocation review, this year the Government consulted on a range of potential additional domestic carbon leakage mitigation measures. After careful review, and giving thorough consideration to the potential implications, the Government have today published a response to the consultation. The Government will implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) from January 2027 which will place a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported to the UK from the aluminium, cement, ceramics, fertilizer, glass, hydrogen, iron, and steel sectors.
The UK CBAM will work cohesively with the UK ETS to ensure imported products are subject to a carbon price comparable to that incurred by UK production, mitigating the risk of carbon leakage. The Government will work with the rest of the UK ETS Authority to consider whether free allocation should be adjusted to reflect changes to carbon leakage risk for given sectors.
Alongside a CBAM, the Government will work with industry to establish voluntary product standards that businesses can adopt to help promote their low carbon products to consumers, and we will seek to develop an embodied emissions reporting framework that could serve future carbon leakage and decarbonisation policies.
Delivery of the CBAM will be subject to further consultation in 2024, as will voluntary standards and the embodied emissions reporting framework.
UK ETS pathway and statutory review
The UK ETS Authority has also published a joint response to the independent review of net zero’s recommendations for the scheme. It confirms the authority’s commitment to continuing the UK ETS until at least 2050, and is intended to give businesses in sectors covered by the scheme the policy certainty they need to make the long-term decarbonisation investments.
Finally, the UK ETS Authority has published its first statutory review of the operation of the UK ETS since its launch. The review, supported by independent evaluation, confirms the scheme’s central role in delivering on the UK’s net zero targets, alongside recommendations to enhance its function, such as expansion to new sectors and technical amendments to its operation.
These publications demonstrate our commitment to delivering continued development of the UK ETS, and doing so in a way that works in partnership with affected sectors.
[HCWS140]
Publicly Accessible Registers of Beneficial Ownership: Overseas Territories
(11 months, 1 week 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)
Illicit finance is an active and growing threat to the UK family, and can undermine our national security, prosperity and democracy. It is more important than ever that we work together to tackle the emerging challenges. Publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership are an essential tool in the fight against illicit finance and corruption and provide substantial wider benefits to public trust in institutions and transparency in the business environment.
We welcomed the commitments made by all inhabited overseas territories to implement publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in line with the draft Order in Council issued in response to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. In 2020, we set out in a written ministerial statement our expectation that the territories would implement registers by the end of 2023.
In November 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that an EU requirement to implement publicly accessible registers was contrary to the EU charter of fundamental rights. This ruling does not apply to the UK or its overseas territories. However, several overseas territories have noted concerns about the legal implications of implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership if human rights provisions applicable to them were to be interpreted in a similar way. The UK remains satisfied with the lawfulness of our own register and the ability of territories to meet the requirements of the draft Order in Council.
Given our differing views on this ruling with several overseas territories, we have worked with them to find a way to make positive progress through the delivery of an interim step, which would involve the implementation of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership, with a legitimate interest access filter, next year. This would allow access to beneficial ownership information by members of the public who have a legitimate interest in doing so, including media and civil society organisations that are involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering.
Following intensive discussions with each of the overseas territories at the Joint Ministerial Council and across a series of bilateral conversations, we have made significant progress in the delivery of greater corporate transparency. I set out below the progress individual overseas territories expect to make over the next year to deliver against their commitments for greater corporate transparency. We will collectively review progress and discuss broader issues related to combating illicit finance with the overseas territories in March 2024 during the ministerial illicit finance dialogue.
The following territories have either already implemented a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership or remain committed to delivering one as soon as possible in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. In recognition of the capacity constraints faced by these territories, the UK will continue to provide both technical and financial assistance.
Falkland Islands
The Government of the Falkland Islands are committed to having a full publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. Due to capacity issues, implementation is likely to be during the summer of 2024.
Gibraltar
The Government of Gibraltar successfully implemented a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership in 2020.
Montserrat
The Government of Montserrat are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. Legislation is currently going through the Montserrat Legislative Assembly and has had its First Reading. It is expected to be passed in the new year and implemented during the summer of 2024.
Pitcairn Islands
The Government of the Pitcairn Islands are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. Due to capacity issues, implementation is likely to be during the summer of 2024.
St Helena
The Government of St Helena are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. The draft legislation is currently undergoing its final review with the intention for implementation in the first half of 2024.
The following territories have committed to strengthening their respective levels of corporate transparency through the delivery of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter in 2024. The UK Government will provide technical assistance as required to expedite and support delivery.
Anguilla
The Government of Anguilla have committed to moving forward with the implementation of a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership where a person or organisation/entity can access specific information by demonstrating a legitimate interest that is consistent with the constitutional framework. Anguilla aspires to having this register operational by the end of 2024.
Cayman Islands
The Government of Cayman Islands are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter no later than Q4 2024. This will include access to parties seeking to prevent or combat money laundering and terrorist financing, for instance media and civil society organisations under specific circumstances.
Turks and Caicos Islands
The Government of Turks and Caicos Islands are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter by Q4 2024. This will include access for media and civil society organisations with a legitimate interest.
The following territories have set out a commitment to delivering greater corporate transparency contingent on external developments. As a result, the parameters of their proposed registers, and the precise timelines associated with implementation, remain unclear. The UK maintains that the overseas territories should deliver greater corporate transparency, independently of action being taken in the European Union or other jurisdictions. The UK Government continue engagement with these territories in order to confirm that they will enable access at least to those with a legitimate interest, such as media and civil society organisations, and as soon as possible. The UK will make available technical assistance to expedite delivery.
British Virgin Islands
The British Virgin Islands Government have confirmed that they will implement a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership consistent with the standards to be identified in the implementation review of the European Union’s fifth anti-money laundering directive. This directive does not apply to the overseas territories, Crown dependencies or the United Kingdom. The British Virgin Islands Government anticipate that the introduction of appropriate frameworks will occur in Q4 2024, but no later than Q2 2025.
Bermuda
The Government of Bermuda expressed their own commitment to make their register of beneficial ownership information accessible to the public within 12 months of the publication of the implementation review of the European Union’s fifth anti-money laundering directive. This directive does not apply to the overseas territories, Crown dependencies or the United Kingdom.
The UK Government welcome the continued co-operation of overseas territory Governments in this matter. Our long-standing commitments to meet the highest standards in beneficial ownership transparency set out our collective desire to be at the forefront of the fight against illicit finance. The commitments outlined above will represent a significant step forward in the overseas territories delivering their commitments to improve corporate transparency. We expect this interim step to be a part of the journey towards the implementation of fully publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in due course. The UK Government remain committed to publicly accessible registers becoming the global norm.
[HCWS150]
Tackling Spiking
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
Today will see the publication of the Government statutory report on the nature and prevalence of spiking in accordance with section 71(1) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. This report has been laid before both Houses today and will be made available on gov.uk.
The report sets out the development of the Government understanding of spiking, the steps taken to provide better support for victims, the legislative measures we will be taking and the non-legislative action that Government, law enforcement and others will be taking to support its implementation.
I would like to thank all those who engaged with the Government as part of the development of this report, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and especially those who have shared their stories with us to help shape the response, and bring this practice to an end.
The publication of the report is a pivotal step in understanding the extent of this insidious offence, the context in which it occurs and the comprehensive approach the Government intend to take towards tackling it.
[HCWS141]
Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2024-25: England
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
On 5 December, I published a policy statement outlining proposals for the 2024-25 local government finance settlement to provide early certainty for councils. Today, I have set out the provisional local government finance settlement for 2024-25 and launched our formal consultation on the proposals. This settlement makes available over £64 billion for local authorities in England, an increase of almost £4 billion or 6.5% in cash terms in core spending power on 2023-24. This is a real-terms increase which demonstrates how the Government stand behind councils up and down the country.
Together, the policy statement published on 5 December, and this proposed settlement:
ensures stability by maintaining the funding guarantee introduced last year, to ensure that every council sees at least a 3% increase in core spending power next year before any local decisions on council tax rates; and
makes available an increase of almost £4 billion on 2023-24, of which £2 billion is additional Government funding; £1 billion of this is for children’s and adult social care in 2024-25.
Stability
Now is the time for stability and continuity. Despite recent decreases in the rate of inflation, the Government recognise that pressures still exist for all local authorities. In this proposed settlement, we are maintaining the funding guarantee we introduced at last year’s settlement to ensure stability for all local authorities, to support the vital work all tiers of local government undertake for communities across the country. By maintaining the funding guarantee, the Government are ensuring every local authority in England will see a minimum 3% increase in their core spending power, before taking any local decisions to increase council tax rates.
We are also uplifting core settlement funding, with the revenue support grant increasing by CPI, and local authorities seeing an increase in baseline funding levels (BFLs) and compensation grant as if both business rating multipliers had increased by CPI. We are continuing the approach set out at last year’s settlement for other grants such as the rural services delivery grant and new homes bonus, which we know are important to councils.
The Government note that whilst local authority reserves are falling, they remain significantly higher than prior to the pandemic. We continue to encourage local authorities to consider, where possible, the use of their reserves to maintain services in the face of these pressures.
We will continue to support projects that reduce costs and improve efficiency by extending the flexibility to use capital receipts to fund revenue costs of these projects to March 2030. We will also engage with the sector to explore additional capital flexibility options to enable invest-to-save and transformation initiatives.
The Government announced on 23 November that we are allocating £450 million across two years to a third round of the local authority housing fund, which will help support those in temporary housing need. This funding allows councils to manage homelessness pressures more effectively and makes it easier for vulnerable people to find a permanent home. The Chancellor announced at autumn statement that the local housing allowance will increase to the 30th percentile of market rents from April. This means 1.6 million low-income households will be around £800 a year better off on average in 2024-25.
Social care
The Government recognise that many local authorities are facing social care demand pressures. That is why we announced significant additional funding at the 2022 autumn statement. Together with funding announced in-year, this means £1 billion in additional grant funding for social care compared to 2023-24.
Council tax
The Government manifesto commits to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases. This is an important local democratic check and balance to avoid the repeat seen under the last Labour Government, when council tax more than doubled. The proposed package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. Local authorities should of course be mindful of cost-of-living pressures when taking any decisions relating to council tax.
As previously set out, we will allow councils to raise their core council tax by up to 3% without a local referendum, and will allow a further adult social care precept of 2% for all authorities responsible for adult social care services. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level. It is for individual local authorities to determine whether to use the flexibilities detailed above, taking into consideration the pressures many households are facing. These actions to protect hard-working people from excessive tax rises are in contrast to the Labour Government in Wales which is planning to hike council tax through a council tax revaluation and higher council tax bands.
The Mayor of London has requested flexibility to levy an additional £20 on band D bills to the Greater London Authority (GLA) precept to provide extra funding for Transport for London (TfL). The Government have expressed ongoing concern about the management of TfL by this Mayor, and it is disappointing that London taxpayers are having to foot the bill for the GLA’s poor governance and decision-making. Whilst the Government will not oppose this request, any decision to increase the precept is solely one for the Mayor, who should take into account the pressures that Londoners are currently facing on living costs and his decision to raise his share of council tax by 9.7% last year.
The exceptional financial support framework is available to provide support where a council has a specific and evidenced concern about its ability to set or maintain a balanced budget, including where there has been local financial failure. Where councils need additional support from the Government, they should take every possible step to minimise the need for that support to be funded by national taxpayers, while also recognising the cost-of-living pressures on families. As part of that process, the Government will consider representations from councils, including on council tax provision.
The Government view continues to be that councils in the most severe financial failure, that are seeking multi-year support from Government, should continue to take all reasonable local steps to support recovery including additional council tax increases. Therefore, for the 2024-25 settlement, in consideration of the significant financial failure of Thurrock Council, Slough Borough Council and Woking Borough Council, the Government propose that bespoke council tax referendum principles should apply. For Thurrock and Slough Borough Council, a core council tax referendum threshold of 8%; and for Woking Borough Council, a council tax referendum principle of 10%. Councils in significant financial failure can make use of any additional flexibilities provided to support their financial recovery and going forward the Government will consider all reasonable steps to protect both national and local taxpayers and ensure councils are acting responsibly.
Part time work for full time pay
We have made it clear that any attempt from a local authority to implement part time work for full time pay—for example, a so called “four-day week” or equivalent arrangements—is contrary to the interests of local taxpayers. This working practice does not represent good value for taxpayers’ money, nor places the sector in a good light with the public. We have included in the consultation our proposals to use financial levers within the settlement to disincentivise councils from operating part time work for full time pay in future settlements. Those councils which are considering or operating such arrangements should not start this practice or stop it immediately.
Conclusion
These proposals will provide councils with the support they need. It ensures stability, delivers additional resources for social care, and maintains balance on council tax.
I welcome representations from all interested parties on the consultation we have launched today. The consultation will run until 15 January. The Minister for Local Government will also be holding engagement sessions for Members of Parliament in the week commencing 8 January 2023.
This written ministerial statement covers England only.
[HCWS148]
Long-term Plan for Towns
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
In September 2023, the Prime Minister announced the long-term plan for towns, providing up to £20 million of “endowment-style” funding and support for 55 towns across Great Britain.
Today, my Department has published guidance that provides further information regarding the town board and development of the long-term plan. In addition to the guidance is a policy toolkit which sets out the powers available to towns, and a list of policy interventions with an already agreed case for investment. Boards should consider this toolkit when developing their long-term plan. We will release a dedicated Scottish and Welsh version of the policy toolkit early in 2024.
All town boards should be established by 1 April 2024 at the latest, or, wherever possible, sooner. Where a town already has an appropriate structure in place, we would encourage local authorities to utilise that forum to act as the town board. It is also a requirement that Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall within the boundary of a town sit on the town board, and an independent chair of the board should be appointed.
The long-term plan must be submitted to my Department by 1 August 2024 or sooner. The guidance published today sets out our expectations as to what should be covered in the plan. Each benefiting local authority will also shortly receive £50,000 of capacity funding to support the appointment of a chair for the town board and begin community engagement. A further release of £200,000 of capacity funding will be released on 1 April 2024, once boards are in place.
This publication is another important step in our mission to level up the United Kingdom. We are putting power with local people at the heart of communities; equipping our towns to unlock new opportunities and respond to future change.
[HCWS149]
Project Gigabit Progress Update: December 2023
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
On 15 December 2023 we published Building Digital UK’s (BDUK) latest progress update on Project Gigabit, the Government £5 billion mission to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband across the UK.
In this update, we report on the four latest contracts to be signed in north-east Staffordshire, north Oxfordshire, south Oxfordshire and Derbyshire. Combined, these contracts represent £76 million of Government investment to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to up to 33,000 premises.
The report also highlights the progress of Project Gigabit across the Union. In addition to our live procurements in England and parts of Wales, we have worked with the Scottish Government to confirm the first Project Gigabit procurements to be launched in Scotland, and we have confirmed our approach for Northern Ireland and the remainder of Wales.
The delivery update also notes the recent publication of BDUK’s annual report and accounts, reporting BDUK’s performance during the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. BDUK exceeded its Project Gigabit delivery target for the year, passing 162,600 premises with gigabit-capable broadband, against the minimum target trajectory of 133,000 set out in its corporate plan. In total, BDUK has delivered gigabit connectivity to 929,700 premises, in mostly hard-to-reach communities across the UK. I will place a copy of the latest Project Gigabit progress update in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS147]
Transport for London: Capital Funding
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that today the Government have agreed a capital funding settlement for 2024 with Transport for London (TfL).
This Government have showed its continued commitment to supporting London’s transport network to recover from the uncertainty of demand following the covid-19 pandemic. Since March 2020, Government have provided TfL with almost £6.4 billion of funding to maintain service levels and support the delivery of major capital projects as well as passenger revenue protection. This is on top of around £1.9 billion per annum of retained business rates for transport, including over £1 billion per annum for capital investment.
In addition, the Government have today agreed a capital settlement which provides a further £250 million of funding, which will enable TfL to continue to deliver its current capital programme and its committed major capital projects, including the delivery of the Piccadilly line upgrade phase 1. This not only provides benefits to Londoners, but it provides benefits for the rest of the country—the Piccadilly line upgrade on its own is expected to support an estimated 700 skilled jobs with a further estimated 250 jobs created in construction and up to 1,700 indirectly in the supply chain.
The current longer-term settlement will end in March 2024, and I continue to encourage Transport for London to modernise and to become a modern, effective, efficient and financially stable operator. Government support has enabled TfL to be on track to being financially sustainable and this capital settlement therefore requires TfL to demonstrate to Government that it is financially sustainable at the end of March 2024, and it will provide to Government in July 2024 its plan demonstrating how it will maintain and strengthen its financial sustainability from FY 24-25.
The decision to provide capital funding to TfL was made at a time when Government are also facing significant financial pressures, as is the rest of the country. Across the board the Government have taken difficult decisions on funding to support those who are hit hardest by rising costs. This is a settlement that is fair and proportionate to London whilst also taking into account funding provided elsewhere in the country and the cost to the national taxpayer, at a time of great pressure on national finances.
Through all of this, Government are continuing to work with the Mayor and TfL to ensure London’s transport system delivers for the public and businesses and contributes to the country’s economy.
[HCWS142]