House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before I start questions, may I wish all Members and their families the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year? I thank all staff within the House of Commons—those in security, catering, Clerks, you name it—for all they do. It is appreciated. It has been another hard year, and I just hope we can have a peaceful world, peace in the middle east, and certainly peace in Europe.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
A very merry Christmas to you and your staff, Mr Speaker. Landfill tax provides an economic incentive to manage waste more sustainably, which has contributed to a 90% reduction in local authority waste sent to landfill in England since 2000. However, it was not intended to act as a barrier to the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated land. In the autumn statement the Government announced the land remediation pathfinder fund, which will provide £78 million of targeted support to local and mayoral authorities.
Cat Smith
Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker. For two weeks now the old Supa Skips site in Lancaster has been burning, and it looks as if Lancaster City Council will be left to pick up the tab for the clean-up. Some of that money has to be spent on landfill tax. Will the Minister meet me and Lancaster City Council to discuss what options are open to my local council to ensure that local ratepayers are not left footing the bill for rogue companies that walk away from sites, such as Supa Skips?
Gareth Davies
As I mentioned in my previous answer, the landfill tax has been hugely successful but it was never intended to act as a barrier to remediation. The fund that was announced in the autumn statement will be open for bids in early 2024, and I encourage the hon. Lady’s local authority to apply through the normal way. Secondly, there is an ongoing review into the landfill tax, and reform of current exemptions are within scope of that review. Our belief is that the fund may offer more targeted support in the way that she desires.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. Today is the funeral of former Chancellor Lord Darling, and if I may, I will make some comments about that in my topicals statement. Anglesey freeport will be a national and international hub for trade, innovation and commerce, regenerating communities by attracting new business, and spreading jobs, investment and opportunity.
Virginia Crosbie
Nadolig llawen pawb. I was delighted that the Chancellor extended freeport tax reliefs in England in his autumn statement. Does he agree that if those extensions are realised in Wales, it will give companies the confidence to invest and help deliver the £1 billion investment, and thousands of jobs forecast for our Anglesey freeport? Will he join me in thanking all those at the Isle of Anglesey County Council and Stena Line who worked so hard recently to submit the outline business case?
Jeremy Hunt
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking all those involved in promoting the Anglesey freeport, which we think may create 5,500 jobs. We are working closely with the Welsh Government to agree on how the 10-year window to claim reliefs can be extended across freeports in Wales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done more than anyone to put Ynys Môn on the map.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Thank you very much for doing the funnies, Mr Speaker.
Freeports can certainly be a catalyst of economic growth and prosperity in north Wales and the east midlands, but they must be in the right place. Putting a freeport in North West Leicestershire, which already enjoys some of the highest economic growth in the country, has low unemployment, and is capable of filling its industrial sites without incentives, makes little sense. Will the Chancellor agree to meet me to discuss better alternatives for the east midlands than the Diseworth freeport site?
Jeremy Hunt
I would be happy to ask one of my colleagues to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss why freeports are not appropriate in his part of Leicestershire.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
A very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Government guarantee to maintain the £2.4 billion annual budget for farmers across the UK for every year of this Parliament. As agriculture is devolved, it is ultimately for the Scottish Government to decide how to allocate that money to farming in Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister will be aware of the frustration that is felt by many farmers and crofters in Scotland that the £33 million that was given to the Scottish Government for a specific purpose as part of the Bew review has been deferred hitherto. What will she do in future to ensure that where money is given for the express purpose of supporting Scottish agriculture, it is in fact used for that purpose?
Laura Trott
The right hon. Member raises an excellent question. The SNP Government are yet to clarify when this ringfenced money will be returned. I hope they will do so this afternoon at the Budget.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I echo your comments, Mr Speaker, with Christmas wishes for all the House staff, your staff and Members? The UK Government’s attempt to overhaul the EU subsidy scheme has left English farmers 50% worse off in cash terms than in 2020. While the Scottish Government have sought to protect our farmers’ payments, can the Minister guarantee that the UK Government will not try to undermine their payments and devolution by back-door use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?
Laura Trott
I note that the hon. Member did not answer my question, nor that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about when the ringfenced money will be returned.
Mr Speaker
Order. Questions are normally to the Minister, not the other way around.
Laura Trott
Very good point, but I still maintain that the hon. Member needs to clarify that matter. It is up to the Scottish Government if they would like at any point to top up the amount that goes to Scottish farming. I encourage them to do so this afternoon at the Budget.
Drew Hendry
I do not think any Scottish farmer will be reassured by what the Minister has just said. I just said that the Scottish Government are protecting those farmers’ payments, while English farmers are losing out, as we know. What we do not have from the UK Government is detail on what they will be doing after 2025. If we had remained in the European Union, we would know that figure for farming subsidies so that the Scottish Government could make plans to help farmers plan ahead. Can the Minister apologise for that situation and guarantee that in the early months of next year we will have clarity on farming payments?
Laura Trott
The UK Government have laid out plans for the agriculture transition in England that go beyond the current spending review, giving farmers increased certainty over policy and spending intent for years to come. The Scottish Government could decide to provide farmers in Scotland with similar certainty if they chose to do so.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
A very jolly Christmas to you and all, Mr Speaker.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the economy, and we support them to thrive using levers across government. Our small business rate relief means that one third of business properties in England already pay no business rates. We provide tax reliefs benefiting SMEs, such as annual investment allowance and employment allowance, we support investments in SMEs through the British Business Bank programmes and we fund the schemes offering SMEs training and advice.
Paul Holmes
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Mr Speaker. The autumn statement was a huge success for small businesses across the country, with the Federation of Small Businesses describing it as “a game changer”. Will my hon. Friend outline to the House how the autumn statement package will benefit those small businesses in my constituency on which my towns and villages rely?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing support for small businesses in his constituency. Measures in the autumn statement to help them include extending the retail, hospitality and leisure relief for another year, which will support around 230,000 properties in England. That tax cut is worth nearly £2.4 billion. Meanwhile, by freezing the small business multiplier for a fourth consecutive year, we will be protecting more than a million properties from a multiplier increase. Other announcements that could benefit his constituents include the Help to Grow, management and Made Smarter programmes and moves to tackle late payments.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The new 55-day payment rule will apply to only a few hundred companies contracted by the Government, yet microbusinesses, which do not typically have Government contracts, wait on average 68 days for payments. Those businesses make up the majority of small businesses across our country. Why will the Government not back the Micro Business Alliance’s “Pay in 30 days” campaign?
Nigel Huddleston
As I mentioned, we are well aware of the issue of late payments, and we are in constant dialogue with the key stakeholders in this area, as well as colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade. We will always keep an eye on the measures, but the moves we have already made to tackle late payments, as announced recently, will make a big difference.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Thanks to the difficult decisions the Government have taken on inflation and debt, the autumn statement this year was able to deliver the biggest package of tax cuts to be scored since 1988.
Mr French
I very much welcome the tax cuts recently announced by the Chancellor and hope to see more announced soon, especially a rise in the higher rate threshold. As the Conservatives look to reduce the tax burden on working people, does the Chancellor share my concern that £28 billion-a-year unfunded spending commitments would likely see taxes rise and lead to higher interest rates if Labour were ever in government?
Jeremy Hunt
It is not just me but Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies who, when talking about Labour’s plan, has said that
“additional borrowing…drives up interest rates”,
which is, of course, a back-door tax rise on families with mortgages. But as it is Christmas, perhaps I could explain it this way: if Santa borrowed £28 billion, he might have more toys to give out this year, but he would also have debt interest to pay and fewer toys to give out next year.
Caroline Ansell
Record funding is going in to support the cost of childcare, to allow more parents to stay in the workforce. This is very welcome, but the tax burden on single-earner households puts the choice to be a stay-at-home parent beyond the reach of too many. Raising the youngest generation must count as a top investment, so may I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor what recent analysis has been undertaken on the transferable allowance? At up to £252 per annum, it is currently not designed to facilitate that choice.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she knows, the marriage allowance is currently £1,260 per year, and it has been fixed at 10% of the personal allowance since it was introduced in 2015. On this side of the House, we believe it should be a woman’s choice, and we want to make that choice as real as possible for every family. For that reason, we think the best thing we can do is to bring down the taxes paid by working people to put more money into the family budget, and we were happy to make a start on that in the autumn statement.
Wendy Morton
Like many of us in this place, I am a big supporter of Small Business Saturday, and it is important to remember that small businesses are the backbone of local communities all year round. Many are unlikely to be able to take advantage of the Chancellor’s very generous and welcome expensing package, so what additional measures will he continue to consider to support all businesses great and small, including perhaps even corporation tax reductions?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She will know that 70% of trading businesses only pay the lower corporation tax rate of 19%. That covers the vast majority of small businesses. I used to run my own business; I ran it for 14 years before I came into Parliament. I could not agree with her more: small businesses are the backbone of the British economy, which is why we are tackling the scourge of low payments and we rolled over the 75% discount on retail, hospitality and leisure business rates in the autumn statement.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm how much higher the tax burden is forecast to be at the end, compared with at the start, of this Parliament?
Jeremy Hunt
What I can confirm is that, as a result of the measures I took in the autumn statement, it will be lower at the end of the scorecard period than it would otherwise have been, and a lot lower than it would be under any Labour Government.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May I ask the Chancellor how many middle-income taxpayers have been paying the higher rate of tax since 2019?
Jeremy Hunt
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact numbers, but for people on low incomes—people being paid the lowest legally payable wage—their post-tax real income has gone up by 30% since 2010, because the Conservative party believes in making work pay.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Why is the fiscal situation strong enough to cut national insurance, but not strong enough to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GNI?
Jeremy Hunt
Because the way we return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% is to grow the economy. By cutting national insurance, we put nearly 100,000 more people into the national workforce, filling nearly one in 10 vacancies in companies up and down the country.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
The Government believe that all customers should have appropriate access to banking services, which is why we have legislated to protect access to cash. We also support the FCA’s bank branch closure guidance as well as industry initiatives to provide in-person access, including shared banking hubs at post offices, and access via digital means.
Jeff Smith
More than 5,000 bank branches have closed since 2015. Sadly, the Lloyds bank in Withington village will join the many more branches closing in the coming months and leave Withington without a bank branch, but by the end of the year the industry will have delivered only 30 shared banking hubs. Does the Minister think that the pace and scale of that roll-out is good enough?
Bim Afolami
First, it is worth stating that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the decisions on whether to open or close branches are commercial ones, and the Government do not interfere with that. However, we have legislated to protect access for cash. The banks need to abide by the Financial Conduct Authority’s guidance, with the latest guidance published only last week. In relation to shared banking hubs, we should indeed increase the pace at which they are rolled out, and I am talking with the industry about how to do that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is pretty clear that most legacy banks do not give a stuff about their customers and just want to screw as much money out of people as possible. After the scandal of Coutts’s debanking of Nigel Farage, the Government acted swiftly to try to make that much more difficult for other customers, but many businesses face the same problem. What will the Government do to stop businesses being debanked in the same way as individuals?
Bim Afolami
I am not sure that I quite accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the banking industry, but I am happy to meet him and discuss the problems he outlined in relation to specific businesses and access to bank accounts.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, I want to convey the apologies of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She is delivering the eulogy at Alistair Darling’s funeral today.
I want to say a few words about Alistair Darling—I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker—a dedicated public servant, who was respected across both Houses. He led the country’s economic response to the global financial crisis with integrity, honesty and sound judgment, and we will all miss him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) just said, nearly 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, and only 30 banking hubs are up and fully running. That has left countless people financially excluded and affected lots of small businesses. I ask the Minister once again: will he accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs properly? Why are his Government not doing anything to reverse the decline of the great British high street?
Bim Afolami
I agree with the hon. Lady’s words about Lord Darling and echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
On bank branches, I will repeat my position: it is important that the Government do not decide when a branch opens and when it closes, but it is a concern when communities are left without appropriate access to cash. That is why we were the first Government to legislate for access to cash, as we did earlier this year, and that is why I believe we should speed up the roll-out of banking hubs. I am working with the industry on ways in which we can do that.
Tulip Siddiq
If the Minister is serious about protecting the future of the great British high street, will he back Labour’s pledge, which has been welcomed by Cash Access UK and the wider sector, to guarantee face-to-face banking in every community and give the FCA the powers it needs to roll out hundreds of banking hubs across the country?
Bim Afolami
As the hon. Lady knows, the industry leads the roll-out of banking hubs. We are supporting it—I say this again—to speed that up as much as possible. I have not seen the Labour pledge—I suspect that I will not support it—but it is important that the industry hears the views of constituents and Members from across the House and that we speed up the roll-out of banking hubs in communities that need them.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
At the autumn statement, we set out a series of measures to improve pension saver returns, increase opportunities for investment and boost the UK’s capital markets and high-growth companies.
Mrs Drummond
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and to all those in the House. The UK’s pension funds lag behind their counterparts in the USA, Scandinavia and Australia for investing in technology firms. Can my hon. Friend continue his work on reforms and ensure that more pension fund investment stays in the UK, to boost our tech sector?
Bim Afolami
Under the industry-led Mansion House compact, 11 of the UK’s largest defined contribution pension schemes have signed up to the objective of allocating at least 5% of their funds to unlisted equities by 2030. We believe that could unlock £50 billion of investment in high-growth companies and should help increase returns to savers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will appreciate that the greatest investment that anyone can make is in themselves and their own country—Northern Ireland and all the United Kingdom. What steps can be taken to ensure UK-wide investment by pensions schemes in cutting edge businesses such as Wrightbus and Thales?
Bim Afolami
There are a couple of things that we need to do. We need to ensure that the industry abides by its commitment to the 5% target. Working with the Exchequer Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), we must present the right investment opportunities so that the capital goes into the UK in the right way.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government provide a different income tax regime for short-term lets compared with long-term lets if they qualify as furnished holiday lets, for which there are stringent conditions. As with all aspects of the tax system, the Government keep the tax treatment of property landlords under review. Any decisions on future changes will be taken by the Chancellor in the context of wider public finances.
Selaine Saxby
The changes to landlord tax relief, which fully came in during the pandemic, exclude holiday lets. That has contributed to a significant decline in residential landlords in tourist areas like North Devon. The lack of affordable rental properties has priced out workers, particularly in the hospitality sector, resulting in businesses reducing their opening hours and therefore their tax contribution to the Treasury. Can my hon. Friend provide any hope of levelling the tax playing field to encourage long-term landlords back to the market?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this area on behalf of her constituents. The Government want to ensure a diverse and sustainable visitor accommodation offer while protecting local communities, including ensuring the availability of affordable housing to rent or to buy. That is why we are introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets in England, which will be a vital step towards achieving that aim. The Government keep the tax treatment of property landlords under review, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss these issues further.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Throughout Westmorland and Lonsdale we see people, particularly in social care, hospitality and tourism, ejected from their communities because of the collapse in the long-term rental market into a short-term rental market, principally through Airbnb. Will the Minister go further on fiscal controls to make sure that we keep homes available for local people to live in? Will he put pressure on ministerial colleagues to change planning law to make short-term lets a separate category of planning use, so that communities in the lakes and the dales can prevent the collapse of their communities into places only for those who can afford to visit?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We have talked about this topic in my previous roles over many years. He is aware that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has published a consultation on the introduction of a planning use class for short-term lets. He will also be aware that, through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government have introduced a new power to allow councils to apply a council tax premium on second homes. There is progress in this area, but we are always open to new ideas.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I was pleased to speak at the launch of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s report on this subject last week, alongside the FCA. It is worth saying that I used to be on the advisory board of that institute. The Government and the FCA will continue to work closely to ensure that consumer protections are fit for purpose, including through our upcoming reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Jessica Morden
A constituent who was a victim of domestic abuse and whose ex-husband fraudulently took out a loan in her name was constantly harassed by creditors as she tried to clear the debt, and, according to a recent report by the organisation that the Minister mentioned, that is an experience shared by others. Will Ministers discuss with the FCA imposing legal limits on arrears communications in cases such as this, as other countries have done?
Bim Afolami
Let me say two things. First, I pay tribute to the former Financial Secretary, now the Health Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—who did a great deal of work in relation to economic abuse. I am committed to continuing that work with the Treasury to ensure that we limit the circumstances in which the incidents described by the hon. Lady can occur. As for the broader question of what the regulator does in such cases, we have put a record level of funding, to the tune of some £93 million, into working with regulators on debt advice. I shall be happy to discuss with the hon. Lady the details of how we can help her constituents in the way that she suggested.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
As the hon. Lady knows, the path to lower interest rates is through low inflation, and the independent Bank of England has the Government’s full support as it takes action to return inflation to target. The Government’s mortgage charter, brokered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier in the year, is available to 90% of borrowers. Real disposable income per person is about £800 higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted in its March forecast.
Rachel Hopkins
The expiry of 1.5 million fixed-rate mortgage deals next year will mean even more people paying sky high-costs. It comes at a time when many are suffering increased financial hardship and personal debt, which is having an impact on their mental and physical health. Does the Minister think it fair that families are paying hundreds of pounds more each month to cover the costs of the Government’s mini-Budget disaster?
Bim Afolami
Mortgage costs and interest rates have gone up throughout the world, and we are in more or less the middle of the pack—they are higher in the United States, for example—but what will definitely make things harder for the hon. Lady’s constituents, and indeed all our constituents, is borrowing an extra £28 billion that will only serve to increase inflation and keep rates higher for longer.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
The OBR revised up its growth figures after data revisions by the Office for National Statistics indicated the economy had recovered more fully from the pandemic than had been expected, which means that the current level of real GDP is nearly 3% higher than was predicted in March forecasts.
Kerry McCarthy
The Government put a positive spin on the provisional local government finance settlement yesterday, but the Local Government Association said that it did not provide enough funding to meet the severe cost and demand pressures on councils, and assumed that all councils would increase their tax bills by the maximum allowed next year. What will that do for my constituents’ living standards?
Laura Trott
As the hon. Lady will know, we put billions of pounds into councils this year, and the provisional settlement is above what is expected to be the inflation rate next year. If she has specific issues with her local council, I shall be happy to take that up with her.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We have seen one of the greatest falls in living standards in a generation, and the Chancellor has callously removed the household support fund from councils. In Brighton the fund pays for free school meal vouchers in the holidays, the warmth and wellbeing scheme, career centres, family hubs, and food banks such as the one in Whitehawk where my constituency office has its surgeries. Will the Minister think again about scrapping the household support fund, so that councils can support the very worst off?
Laura Trott
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman: no decision has been made about the household support fund. More broadly, however, we have pulled in an average of £3,700 per household this year to help people with exactly what we are talking about. This Government are on the side of people during what is a very difficult time.
Justin Madders
According to the Low Pay Commission, one in five people who should be receiving the national minimum wage do not even get that. This is a huge failure of enforcement. How can we have increased living standards if people do not even receive the legal minimum to which they are entitled?
Laura Trott
If the hon. Gentleman can give individual examples, I ask him please to let us know. It is, obviously, extremely important that we enforce this, but I should point out that we will increase the levels by 9.8% next year, which will make a significant difference to households up and down the country.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Is not the more fundamental problem with the question posed by Opposition Members the fact that the OBR’s forecasts are never right?
Laura Trott
All I can say is that they have definitely gone in the right direction, because the economy next year will be billions of pounds bigger than we thought it was going to be in March.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
Value for money is at the heart of Government spending and it is one of the key considerations for any decision involving the use of public funds across Government. As Chief Secretary, I am committed to tackling waste and promoting productivity across the public sector.
Samantha Dixon
Last year, Government officials admitted that they were paying companies to burn and destroy 15,000 pallets of unusable personal protective equipment each month. Does the Treasury have any idea how much wasted PPE has gone up in smoke this year?
Laura Trott
During the pandemic our priority was absolutely clear: to get PPE to the frontline as quickly as possible. There was an unprecedented global increase in demand for PPE during the emergency response to the pandemic and items were procured at pace. The Department of Health and Social Care continues to seek to recover fraud losses to ensure that public funds are protected.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Throughout the pandemic, people across the country made extraordinary and heart-wrenching sacrifices, yet as they did so, a small minority were instead making millions of pounds by ripping off the taxpayer. With conflicts of interest, defective goods and exorbitant profit margins, it has been greedy and grubby and this Conservative Government have enabled it all. As taxpayers, we want our money back, so Labour will create a covid corruption commissioner to chase down every pound we can. Does the Minister have any idea just how angry people are that our country has been taken for a ride?
Laura Trott
The hypocrisy is absolutely astonishing. During the pandemic the shadow Chancellor wrote that the strategy of turning to big-name UK manufacturers was not delivering the supply that was needed. Yes, we procured things very fast—we needed to do that to get things to the frontline—and we are trying to get back every single penny that was lost to fraud, but we make no apology for doing whatever we could to get PPE to the frontline as quickly as possible.
James Murray
The Minister’s response really does not reflect the seriousness of the situation. This is not just one bad apple; this is a rotten culture that goes to the very top, with £8.7 billion lost on wasted PPE and £7.2 billion lost to covid fraud. That is £15.9 billion of public money gone at a time when people and public services are struggling. Can the Minister remind the House who was Chancellor at the time that all of this was signed off?
Laura Trott
I do not know what more I can add to my last answer. This was done very quickly, at pace, because we were desperate to get PPE to the frontline as quickly as possible. We have set up initiatives to recoup money from fraudulent activity including the Public Sector Fraud Authority, which has already saved taxpayers £311 million in the first year of operation.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
This Government have been one of the largest donors to the global market-led taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures—TNFD—initiative. We will consider how best the TNFD’s recommendations should be incorporated into policy and legislative architecture in a manner that is coherent with global sustainability reporting.
Dr Coffey
Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the officers, Clerks and staff of the House. I am encouraged by my hon. Friend’s answer. It was a year ago today that the global biodiversity framework was agreed in Montreal, and it was absolutely necessary to restore biodiversity loss. The TNFD initiative was launched by the UK G7 presidency in 2021 and it featured in the green finance strategy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I did the ministerial foreword to earlier this year. He will be aware of the recommendations that were launched in September. I am conscious that there was a lot of support from the Treasury previously and that we should try to accelerate the International Sustainability Standards Board standards so that we can bring in this initiative just as successfully as we have done for the TCFD—the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures.
Bim Afolami
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She mentions the Treasury’s green finance strategy, which contains plans to bring forward the sustainability disclosure requirements, building on the global commitments. We have already implemented the climate-related financial disclosures, and we are looking very carefully at the nature-related financial disclosures. We hope to update the House in due course.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced an ambitious growth package that will boost business investment by making full expensing permanent, by removing barriers to business investment, by reforming our inefficient planning system, by speeding up electricity grid connection times and by making £4.5 billion available for strategic manufacturing sectors over the next five years, among other measures.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister for that response. It is very welcome to see full expensing, which will help businesses to invest in the plant and machinery and the technology that are needed. It would also help the ceramics sector, in particular, if it were exempted from the emissions trading scheme. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor about the possibility of exempting the ceramics sector from the ETS, which would help to give the sector the breathing space to invest in productivity and energy efficiency gains?
Gareth Davies
I can think of few greater champions for Stoke’s ceramics sector than my hon. Friend. We recognise that carbon leakage is a significant risk for the ceramics sector, so I can offer him two pieces of information. First, we provide free allowances to the ceramics sector under the ETS. Secondly, just yesterday we announced that ceramics will be included in the UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The Government have announced that they will implement a CBAM from January 2027. The UK CBAM will place a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported to the UK and will ensure that the UK’s decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions, rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas. The delivery of a CBAM will be the subject of further consultation in 2024.
John Penrose
I congratulate the Minister. A CBAM is the cheapest and most future-proof way to save the planet and UK manufacturing jobs at the same time, but some of the details look troubling. Why have some manufacturing industries been left out entirely? Why are others arriving late, so they will be vulnerable to dumping? And how will he ensure that this is not just a tax and price rise for already hard-pressed families and businesses?
Gareth Davies
I recognise and thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness. I will directly address his two main questions. On speed, implementation by 2027, at the latest, will allow the Government to engage with businesses to ensure that they are well prepared, but next year’s consultation will provide more information on timings. We have identified eight sectors that have the greatest exposure to carbon leakage, from both a trade and an emissions perspective.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
Since the spring Budget, the Government have announced seven of the eight English investment zones and confirmed the location of four places eligible to host investment zones in Scotland and Wales. The Government are committed to ensuring that funding and tax sites go live in the 2024-25 financial year.
Nigel Mills
I welcome the investment zone in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Will the Minister confirm that some of the benefits of these zones are not only available in the small number of large sites but are available to any business across the whole zone to apply for?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the east midlands investment zone, which will bring significant benefits across the region in the advanced manufacturing and green industry sectors. I am pleased to tell him that it started with a £9.3 million anchor investment and, over time, will leverage some £323 million in private investment, supporting 4,000 jobs overall.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
Inflation has now halved from 11.1% in October 2022 to 4.7% in October 2023, delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge. This has happened not by accident but as a result of difficult decisions made by the Government and the Bank of England—Government decisions that were opposed every step of the way by the Labour party.
Theresa Villiers
Thank you for calling me to ask a question while I catch my breath, Mr Speaker!
A major component of inflation over this past year has, of course, been the energy price shock. What are the Government doing to ensure the continued expansion of renewable energy so that we have greater energy security, and so that we are more resilient in the face of energy price shocks from overseas?
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is right, and she nailed the delivery of her question while out of breath.
At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced measures that demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to renewable energy as a priority growth sector essential to our energy security and net zero ambitions. The announcements made include a new investment exemption from the electricity generator levy and a £960 million green industries growth accelerator.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Today is the funeral of Lord Darling, who will be greatly missed by many in this House, as well as by Maggie and his family. Civil servants are known for being good at concealing their private feelings about more challenging Ministers, but that was never necessary with Alistair Darling. He was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor during the global financial crisis, and despite the many stresses and strains of that period, he was uniformly admired and much loved for his kindness, decency and dry sense of humour. He took decisions in that period that have stood the test of time and put him on the small list of Chancellors whom history will remember for wise decision making in an unprecedented crisis. We will always remember him.
Finally, Mr Speaker, may I wish you and all the staff in the House a merry and peaceful Christmas?
Dr Cameron
I, too, send my full sympathy. I also wish everyone across the House a merry Christmas.
Industry has fully supported the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK becoming a cryptocurrency hub, but many licensed companies are still finding it difficult to open bank accounts here. So will the Chancellor meet the all-party group on crypto and digital assets to discuss what progress can be made on digital Britain?
Jeremy Hunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because the UK, and London in particular, has become the global crypto hub. To make sure that the market can really take off in the way that was intended—in a responsible way—we need to regulate it, which is why we have introduced regulations on stablecoins and on the promotion of crypto services. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would be more than happy to meet her.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to you and to the House, Mr Speaker. Let me start by thanking the Chancellor for his kind words about the late Lord Darling, which I think show the gratitude of Members from across the House for his lifetime of public service.
The public have a right to know why so many billions of pounds of their taxes have been wasted by this Government. Baroness Mone has claimed today that Conservative Ministers knew about her personal connections to the company PPE Medpro from the very beginning. So why did the Government not correct the record when a misleading picture was being painted in the media about Baroness Mone’s personal connection to PPE Medpro in the first place?
Jeremy Hunt
I am not going to comment on allegations by Baroness Mone or, indeed, on the individual case, but let me say this: we put together a taskforce of more than 1,000 people that opened 46,000 investigations and so far has made more 80 arrests, so we will stop at nothing to tackle fraud and bring to justice anyone who was responsible for wrongdoing. But what we did in a moment of extreme crisis was to make sure that we got personal protective equipment to the frontline as quickly as we could, and had we not done so many more lives would have been lost.
Darren Jones
We all know that Baroness Mone’s enrichment via PPE Medpro is subject to an investigation, but that does not allow Ministers to refuse to answer questions here in the House today. So let me ask another: Baroness Mone’s husband, Doug Barrowman, alleged that in November 2022 he was approached by a Government official asking if they would
“pay more for the other matter to go away.”
Is that specific and incredibly serious claim now being investigated and, if so, by whom?
Jeremy Hunt
If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of people behaving improperly or illegally, he should tell the police, and he will get the full support of this Government and the whole House in bringing the matter to justice. But let me just say to him that any responsible Opposition should understand that in a crisis there is a trade-off between speed and taking longer to prevent fraud, and we took the right decision to save as many lives as possible.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for small businesses. The Government recognise that accounting for VAT can be a burden on businesses, but that is why, at £85,000, the UK has a higher VAT registration threshold than any EU member state and the second highest in the OECD, keeping the majority of UK businesses out of VAT altogether. In the 2022 autumn statement, it was announced that the VAT threshold would be maintained at its current level until 31 March 2026. As always, the Government keep taxes under review.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
I recognise the important role the household support fund has played. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, no decisions have been made about what will happen going forward. There were a lot of anti-poverty measures in the autumn statement, including increasing benefits next year by double the rate of inflation, increasing the full-time national living wage by £1,800 a year and increasing the local housing allowance, providing an average of an extra £800 to 1.6 million households.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee for raising this issue with me. We want to ensure that people can be served accurately and effectively through the most efficient channels. Two thirds of calls to the self-assessment line could be resolved online, through other channels—I highly recommend the app, for example. Last year, HMRC received over 3 million calls on three issues—resetting a password, getting a tax code and getting a national insurance number—that could easily be resolved digitally. People will still be able to call in, but we need to redeploy resources away from very simple questions towards those most in need, which will help those who are digitally unaware.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
I do not know the details of the issue raised by the hon. Lady, but I assure her that the Treasury is ferocious in its determination to ensure that every penny of the public’s money is spent wisely.
Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)
I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Laura Trott
I know that the hon. Lady will have welcomed the most important change to cost of living pressures, which is inflation coming down. In addition, we have had the cost of living payments this year, and also benefits going up by 10.1% this year and by more than the expected level of inflation next year. We as a Government have done all we can to support people and will continue to do so.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Jeremy Hunt
As I go to carol services over the festive period, I will make sure that I am suitably inspired by what the three wise men brought to the crib. I can tell my hon. Friend that I am actually visiting our gold reserves this week, so I will see at first hand just how important they are.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Right now, council leaders up and down the country are having to make very difficult decisions on cutting vital services—not because of profligacy, but because of Government cuts to their funding. What steps is the Chancellor taking to ensure that local authorities—such as that in York, which is the lowest-funded area—are adequately funded?
Laura Trott
The hon. Lady will have heard my answer to a previous question where I stated that we have put billions of pounds of extra money into local government this year to cover pressures. We recognise that those pressures are real, which is why the provisional settlement proposes an above-inflation rise for next year.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
A fortnight ago, Kaye Adams, a TV presenter, won her case against His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on IR35 status. Despite the fact that she won her first tax tribunal on the issue, HMRC took her to either a tribunal or court four times over a nine-year period, forcing her to spend £200,000 in legal fees. HMRC spent many times that, using two King’s counsel at the last hearing alone. This was over a net tax bill of £70,000. There is no conceivable economic case for that. What HMRC is trying to do is move the guidelines by coercing Ms Adams and using her as an example to intimidate other self-employed workers to give in to HMRC’s bullying. This is a disgrace. It has gone on for too long. The 2021 revisions were inadequate and ministerial oversight is too weak. When will the Government review IR35 and, ideally, abolish it?
Nigel Huddleston
It is our duty to ensure that everyone pays the right tax under the law regardless of wealth or status. We note the decision of the tribunal and will carefully analyse the outcome before considering the next steps, but the off-payroll rules ensure that people who work like employees, but through their own limited company, are taxed like employees, creating a level playing field for other workers.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
UK capital requirement regulations mandate a 50% level of capitalisation to be held by lenders for longer terms as opposed to 20% for shorter terms. Car manufacturer banks, such as Renault’s RCI Financial Services, underpin every franchise car dealer across these islands and operate on a seven-day notice period to terminate in order to minimise their capital requirements at 20%. The problem arises when a bank such as RCI maladministers a serious activity report, panics over its obligations under the regulations and terminates an award-winning Renault, Nissan and Dacia dealer such as Mackie Motors in my constituency with seven days’ notice. Will the Chancellor or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss this crisis?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Indeed, I will meet him to discuss the matter to make sure that this regulation does not have the adverse effects that he has outlined.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Since the Prime Minister’s speech on net zero in September, Nissan has announced a £2 billion investment in Sunderland, which comes hot on the heels of Tata’s £4 billion investment in batteries. EDF Masdar has announced an £11 billion investment in offshore wind in Dogger Bank. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a tripling of tidal energy contracts for difference. We had 11 hydrogen projects announced last week. There are six companies bidding for small modular reactors. [Interruption.] Is it not the case that, hot on the heels of yesterday’s announcement of a £6 billion allocation of energy efficiency funding and the carbon border adjustment mechanism—
Mr Speaker
Order. We had this last time with you. I’m sorry, but I am trying to be generous because it is Christmas. Do not take advantage of other Members; I still have others to get in. It is just not fair, and it is very selfish to carry on when I have asked you not to. I do not find it acceptable. I look forward to the apology shortly. Would someone like to answer that question, briefly?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his campaigning on these issues. I just note that on electric vehicle manufacturing alone, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that in the past year we have had more investment pledged for UK electric vehicles than in the previous seven years combined.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The life sciences sector is worth £2.4 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. What steps have been taken, with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to increase funding for employment within this worthy sector?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that life sciences is one of the key growth industries for this country. I would be happy to meet him to discuss all the things we are doing for the sector, particularly in Northern Ireland.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Our economy continues to be impacted by the war in Ukraine and denial across the Black sea, and we now must brace ourselves for further economic shocks as global shipping avoids the Red sea. Does the Minister agree that we should be protecting these shipping lanes? Our Navy is now too small by half to protect our maritime interests, so will he now look at investing in our surface fleet to protect our economy?
Jeremy Hunt
As my right hon. Friend knows, I have long believed in the importance of investing in our armed forces, but that ultimately depends on a strong economy that will pay for sustained investment, and that is what is happening under this Government.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will the Chancellor update the House on how he plans to move forward with some of the key recommendations from Lord Harrington’s review into foreign direct investment in the UK?
Jeremy Hunt
I am happy to do that. In fact, I hosted a reception for Lord Harrington and the people responsible for that review last week. We will start by increasing the budget of the Office for Investment so that it can give a more bespoke service to potential overseas investors.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
We are all mindful of the need to control public finances and slim the civil service, but can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Darlington Economic Campus will receive the jobs that were promised, and will he give consideration to my proposal to name their permanent home of DEC William McMullen House, in recognition of the sacrifice William made for people of Darlington?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for his constituency. I hear what he has to say and I am happy to meet him to talk about it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the threat to thousands of jobs at Scunthorpe steelworks and many more in the supply chain that supports it, all of which would have a devastating effect on the economy of northern Lincolnshire. Can he and his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade bring a speedy conclusion to the negotiations and lift the cloud over Scunthorpe?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on that issue and reassure him that we in the Treasury completely understand how vital steel is to the future of his area and to his constituents. We will continue to do everything we can to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.
Israel and Gaza
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and Gaza.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The whole House will be gravely concerned about the desperate situation in Gaza. It cannot continue, and we are deploying all our diplomatic resources, including in the United Nations, to help find a viable solution. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her urgent question and for the private messages from Gaza that she has made available to me, and I look forward to meeting her in the Foreign Office tomorrow.
The scale of civilian deaths and displacement in Gaza is shocking. I was particularly disturbed to hear about the situation of civilians trapped in the Holy Family church complex in Gaza City, the lack of water and food, and reports of sniper fire causing civilian deaths inside the complex. Although Israel has the right to defend itself against terror, restore its security and bring the hostages home, it must abide by international law and take all possible measures to protect civilians.
No one wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer than necessary. We recognise the sheer scale of the suffering, and are appalled at the impact on civilians. We urgently need more humanitarian pauses to get all the hostages out and lifesaving aid in. We welcome the recent opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing to help achieve that, but it is not enough. Our immediate priorities are to secure the release of British hostages, to show solidarity with Israel in defending itself against Hamas while complying with international humanitarian law, and to call for such pauses, both at the UN and directly with Israel, to ensure that emergency aid can be distributed in Gaza, including fuel, water and medicine.
The Foreign Secretary will discuss the situation in Gaza with regional leaders this week in his visit to Egypt and Jordan. The Government have recently announced an additional £30 million of British aid, tripling the UK aid budget for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year. To date, we have delivered 74 tonnes of aid, but there is still more to do. Casualty numbers are far too high, and we are calling on Hamas to release each and every kidnapped hostage. We are also actively exploring other routes for aid into Gaza, including maritime options.
Of course, as both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, ultimately this must end. We of course want to see an end to the fighting, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire, meaning that Hamas must stop launching rockets into Israel and must release the hostages. More than 130 hostages are still unaccounted for. They must be released immediately and returned to their families. To achieve long-term peace in the middle east, a viable two-state solution is needed. Leaving Hamas in power in Gaza would be a permanent roadblock on the path to that; no one can be expected to live alongside a terrorist organisation committed to their destruction and dedicated to repeating those attacks.
Layla Moran
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. Let me begin by pointing Members towards my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am an unpaid adviser to International Centre of Justice for Palestinians.
I have spoken before in the House about my extended family who are in the Holy Family parish church in Zeitoun, Gaza. The situation has been desperate for weeks but is now descending further. There are tanks outside the gates, and soldiers and snipers pointing into the complex and shooting at anyone who ventures out, and the convent was bombed. On Saturday, two women were shot. They were simply trying to get to the toilet. There is no electricity or clean water, and the update that I had last night was that they were down to their last can of corn. I am told that, after pressure, food has been delivered, but they have not seen it.
When this began a week ago, the Israel Defence Forces soldiers ordered those civilians to evacuate against their will. Can the Government confirm that they see the forcible displacement of civilians as unacceptable? The people in the church are civilians. They have nothing to do with Hamas. They are nuns, orphans and disabled people; they are a small Christian community and they know everyone. As the Pope has said, and as my family can confirm, it is categorically untrue to say that Hamas are operating from there. The situation has been condemned by many. Will the Government condemn it?
It is important to stress that the suffering is not confined to just that church. Just last week, we saw the utterly tragic deaths of three Israeli hostages. Others are reported to have been murdered by Hamas, and 100 are still in captivity. That is also unacceptable. Seventy-three days on in this conflict, the death toll is only rising. It is time for the international community to say that this violence is now making peace harder, not easier.
The UK Government talk now of a sustainable ceasefire, and although I and the Liberal Democrats welcome the change in tone, it is unclear whether that is in fact a change in position. Will the Government demand an immediate bilateral ceasefire? Will they change how they vote at the UN Security Council as a result? When will the Prime Minister accept that the only route to peace is political, not military—that there is one way to get rid of Hamas and end the humanitarian catastrophe, and it is not this? When will the United Kingdom fulfil its historical obligations to the region and recognise Palestine as a first step towards delivering the two states, which is the only way to guarantee security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I understand how deeply distressing this is for her, with her family caught up in the Holy Family church complex. As I said in my response, I am grateful to her for the harrowing update she was able to give me direct from the Holy Family church. I am very pleased to hear that she thinks food has been delivered—we will follow up on that point directly after this urgent question.
The hon. Lady talked about the protection of civilians; the British Government make absolutely clear that international humanitarian law must be abided by. She also mentioned humanitarian aid; we understand that yesterday 191 trucks entered the Gaza strip, 127 through Rafah and 64 through Kerem Shalom, which is a new avenue that we very much welcome. Finally, on the point she made about the United Nations, we are working with partners on a resolution, and I expect there will be a vote at 3 pm today, UK time. That is what we are working towards, and while the position is not yet clear, we are hoping to support that resolution.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
While walking to Parliament yesterday, I politely challenged a driver who had selfishly parked his car in the bus lane leading on to Chelsea bridge so that he could buy a coffee at the nearby kiosk. When I suggested he move it given the traffic chaos it was causing, he blankly refused, began swearing at me, threatened to throw my phone in the river if I took a photo of him, and then called me a racist and a Zionist. Sadly, that illustrates how hate and intolerance here in the UK are being fuelled by events in the middle east. This conflict is now in its third month, with no end in sight, no clarity from Israel as to how long the occupation will last, and the death toll is mounting. Does the Minister agree that without concerted international intervention, the conflict will escalate?
Mr Mitchell
I am appalled to hear about the way in which my right hon. Friend was treated on his way into the House of Commons. We are stressing the importance of a more surgical approach by the Israeli Defence Forces and are working towards a more sustainable cessation of hostilities. We recognise that there are too many casualties, and we are pressing forward on what is the policy of both the Government and the Opposition: more extensive humanitarian pauses, so that aid can get into Gaza.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this very important urgent question. May I say how deeply sorry I am to hear of the terrifying experience facing her family in Gaza? I am sure the whole House is with her and her relatives at what must be an incredibly difficult time.
The reports from the Holy Family Catholic church are shocking: an innocent mother and daughter killed in the grounds of a church, with others too scared to leave and now running out of food. Once again in this conflict, a place of sanctuary and peace has become a scene of fear and death. It is one example of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe confronting civilians across Gaza, and a reminder of the urgent imperative to address this crisis and help bring about the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire. It comes at a moment of growing concern that this conflict could escalate, with Hezbollah in the north, more violence in the west bank, and Houthi threats in the Red sea. We support efforts to maintain regional security, and Labour welcomes the UK’s participation in the new maritime security effort. We thank our armed forces personnel for their service and professionalism.
Today, the United Nations Security Council is voting once again on a resolution. This is a crucial chance to address the urgent and catastrophic situation in Gaza. Let me be clear: Labour wants a resolution to pass, one that can protect civilian lives, that demands that hostages are released, and that can act as a stepping stone towards a sustainable ceasefire and provide renewed impetus towards a two-state solution. The time has come for the United Kingdom to support our international allies at this critical moment.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. We are, as he knows, very committed to trying to make sure that there is no escalation. I thank him for his welcome for the US-led work to secure maritime security, and I also thank him for his comments, particularly at this time of year, about our armed forces. I have already commented on the UN Security Council resolution, which I hope will be voted on this afternoon; like him, I hope that agreement can be reached.
On the issue of the humanitarian catastrophe to which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred, I can tell him that there is some movement this week. There are 50 World Food Programme trucks ready at Allenby bridge to travel through Israel to Kerem Shalom, and if signed off, that will provide a new route through to Gaza. We have made available some money to the World Food Programme—it is available today—to enhance that route if it opens.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
All of us abhor the loss of innocent civilian life in Israel and Gaza, but talk of a “sustainable ceasefire” is unhelpful. All it does is give succour to Israel’s enemies at the time of its greatest need. This is a country that fell to its knees just a few weeks ago and suffered the worst tragedy since the holocaust. Now it is trying to eliminate Hamas and to free the hostages, some of whom are British citizens. Let it finish the job, let it protect Israeli security, and in doing so, let Israel protect our security as well.
Mr Mitchell
While it is true that weapons have been discovered in incubators in a hospital in Gaza, nevertheless I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. We are working towards a sustainable ceasefire. We are not there yet, but we should all of us be working towards that. In the meanwhile, on the pathway to a sustainable ceasefire, we need urgently to get these humanitarian pauses so that humanitarian relief can enter Gaza.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I, too, send my very best wishes to the family of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).
As we know, later today the Government’s call for a sustainable ceasefire will be tested at the UN Security Council. If the Government again decide to abdicate their responsibility to humanity and abstain, they will be giving Netanyahu the political cover he needs to prosecute a war in which tens of thousands have already been killed and in which, at the weekend, according to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem,
“a sniper of the IDF murdered two women inside the Holy Family Parish in Gaza.”
If the UK is unable to support a ceasefire now, when will it? What has to happen before this Government say enough is enough, and that the indiscriminate killing of innocents, the blanket bombing of civilian infrastructure and the killing of journalists has to stop now? How many more breaches of international humanitarian law will it take for this Government to find the moral courage to say, “This has to stop, and it has to stop now”?
Mr Mitchell
I do not think this is an issue of moral courage. The Government, with the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench, are doing what we believe to be right. We have been very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself, but it must do more to diminish and minimise the number of civilian casualties. On the point the hon. Member made about the United Nations resolution, which we hope will be passed this afternoon, as I have said, skilled British diplomats in New York are engaged in talking throughout the United Nations to try to make sure that that resolution lands in the way both he and I want.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I welcome the calls from the Foreign Secretary for a sustainable ceasefire, and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s words from the Dispatch Box today. Over the weekend, the Foreign Secretary received two letters, one from 10 Back Benchers on this side of the House and another from a group of foreign policy experts, calling for a permanent ceasefire. The last truce resulted in over 80 hostages being released and hundreds of lives being saved. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a permanent ceasefire would reap similar results?
Mr Mitchell
It is true that the Foreign Secretary received a letter over the weekend, signed by 10 colleagues, which states:
“It is widely accepted across the world that lasting security for Israel, peace for the Palestinians, an end to the killing, and the defeat of Hamas, can only be achieved through politics and diplomacy and the establishment of two states.”
That is very much the view of the Government as well.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
The Minster has clearly seen the communiqué from the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, pointing out the atrocities committed in the grounds of the Holy Family church, with two people murdered and at least seven wounded. That shows a shocking lack of fire control discipline by the Israeli forces. Will the Minister raise with the Israeli forces my grave concerns, and those of many colleagues across the House, that that is not acceptable?
Mr Mitchell
There is no need for me to raise it with the Israeli forces, because they are themselves conducting an inquiry into the matter.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
At Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital last weekend, approximately 80 Hamas fighters were arrested, some of whom took part in the 7 October massacres. Weaponry, Hamas intelligence, and military and technological equipment were recovered, and reports suggest that hospital staff directed the Israel Defence Forces to weapons that Hamas had stored inside incubators for premature babies. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning Hamas for those appalling war crimes, and does he agree that that incident underlines Hamas’s disregard for civilian human life in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right to point to those reports. As I mentioned earlier, there have been reports of weapons found in incubators, in particular in Kamal Adwan Hospital. I am sure that every Member of this House condemns without qualification the appalling events perpetrated by Hamas, starting on 7 October.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with Cardinal Vincent Nichols’s version of events that took place in the compound of the Holy Family church?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Lady will understand that I am not in a position to make that judgment, but I have heard with great respect what the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has said.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
All of us were deeply sympathetic to the plight of our Jewish brothers after the October pogrom, and most of us accepted the argument that an immediate ceasefire would have played into the hands of Hamas, but I think on these Benches the mood is changing. Frankly, what Israel is doing is totally unacceptable. This is indiscriminate bombing of vast civilian populations. Leaving aside the outrage at the Holy Family church, it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel that it radicalises whole generations of Arab youth. It is not in our interests, either, to be involved in any way on the side of Israel doing that. We must up the rhetoric and condemn that unequivocally.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will have seen the article co-authored by the Foreign Secretary and his German counterpart. He is right to refer to the pogrom that was instigated in October, and also to the importance of a sustainable ceasefire and respect for international humanitarian law. In my view, the answer to his final point is that the moment there is an opportunity to advance a political track, it must be seized by the region, and Britain will do everything it can to support that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
We should all thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her steadfastness and for securing this urgent question. Eighteen thousand people have now died across the Gaza strip, and Israel is using food, water and medicine as weapons of war against a civilian population. There are 8,000 missing people under the rubble. As she said, a political solution is required, not a military one. Can the Minister assure the House that the vote today will bring about a ceasefire, and that it will stop the escalation of the war into the Red sea and the Mediterranean, and start to address the underlying issue, which is of course Israel’s occupation of the west bank, the refugees all around the world, and the continued siege of Gaza, which has gone on for decades? We must have the start of a long-term process that brings about real justice for the Palestinian people, or we will be back here again with more war crimes, more deaths, more destruction, and the horrors for decades to come.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to focus on the United Nations Security Council resolution, which we hope will be passed this afternoon. That is the way we move the situation forward towards the political track that both he and I want to see as rapidly as possible.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
We all welcomed the humanitarian pause that saw the release of a number of hostages, and aid delivered into Gaza. On 1 December, the seven-day pause collapsed following the firing of rockets into Israel from Gaza. Hamas also failed to provide a daily list of hostages to be released by 7 am, in a further violation of the truce. Will the Minister join me in criticising Hamas for violating the truce agreement, once again proving that they are no partners for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians?
Mr Mitchell
The House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I assure him that we are doing everything we can to get humanitarian support into Gaza, including focusing specifically on any maritime opportunities. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Lyme Bay is loaded with supplies in Cyprus, and is ready to sail once we can be assured that the support can be received and delivered.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
With almost 20,000 deaths in Gaza, my constituents in Bolton are asking, “When is ‘enough’ enough?” With 153 countries voting for a ceasefire, when is a “sustainable ceasefire” a ceasefire that happens now? Members of Noorul Islam mosque in Bolton recently visited Egypt to try to get aid across the border into Gaza. Will the Minister meet me to discuss ways that we can work with the Egyptian Government and other partners to ensure that aid can get from Bolton into Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said today, and for the information and work from his community in Bolton that he is making available to the Foreign Office. Of course I shall be pleased to see him at a mutually convenient time.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Last week I attended a briefing with Professor Ghassan Abu Sitta, a heroic British Palestinian doctor who had just returned from Gaza. Because the Israeli siege prevents medical supplies from entering Gaza, he told us he had to use vinegar and washing up liquid to sterilise wounds, even on the night when he performed amputations on six children. He recounted their screams, and the desperation of their parents. I pay tribute to Professor Ghassan, but it will forever shame this House that the dying and the wounded who he treated were bombed and maimed by Israel with the approval of this place. Will the Government finally listen to the growing global calls and demand an immediate ceasefire?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady’s eloquent intervention underlines the importance of achieving a sustainable ceasefire in the way set out by the Foreign Secretary in his article at the weekend.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Over the weekend the Israelis uncovered the largest ever Hamas tunnel, at 2.5 miles long. The brother of Hamas’s leader has been seen driving through the tunnel as he hides beneath Gaza’s civilian population. The Minister has already spoken about 70 Hamas fighters surrendering at a hospital where there were firearms in incubators for premature babies. Does he agree that those are important reminders of Hamas’s appalling use of human shields, of why Hamas must no longer brutalise Gaza’s population and terrorise Israelis, and of why the UK would be completely wrong to call for a ceasefire before the threat of Hamas is removed?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I suspect that on both sides of the House there is no need for a reminder of the horrific events that Hamas have perpetrated, on 7 October and since. As he will understand, we are trying to ensure that the hostages are released as swiftly as possible, that the rockets stop, and that we are able to move to a political process as soon as feasible.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Hundreds of British Palestinians have seen multiple generations of their relatives killed, their family homes destroyed and their futures in Gaza decimated. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for organising the moving event with Professor Ghassan Abu Sitta. It was a packed room, and not a single eye was dry as we listened to him speak about the horrific situation in the hospitals. Have either the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Minister met any British Palestinian families, including those who have recently returned from Gaza, to witness how they have been affected by Israel’s indiscriminate strikes?
Mr Mitchell
My understanding is that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have had access to that information. The hon. Gentleman makes a plea for those difficulties to end, and I hope he will accept that the Government are doing everything we can to fulfil what he wants to see and what we want to see.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
There is nothing morally courageous about arguing for the people who committed the atrocities on 7 October—the rapists and murderers who crossed into Israel on that day—to remain in power, which is what those who are demanding a ceasefire with Hamas are asking for. That is the reality. I fear sometimes, listening to what is said here, that some people hope Israel does not succeed in achieving its aim of wiping out this horrendous terrorist cult. While there may be a letter from some colleagues that barely reached double figures, very many of us on the Government Benches have been proud of the strong stand and moral clarity that the Government have had in supporting Israel after what happened on 7 October, and I hope that continues.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are determined that we will end up with a situation where the Palestinians can run their own territory, where the Arab states are heavily involved, and where a political initiative is regionally led. Lots of international work, support and help is required, but we have to get to a point where we can see that political track take shape.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Ahead of today’s UN Security Council vote, a group of foreign policy and military experts, including the former chief of the UK armed forces, General Richards, have called for the Foreign Secretary to support an immediate ceasefire at the UN Security Council. Many have long argued for that, but it can be achieved at the UN Security Council only if the US stops vetoing resolutions. I welcome what the Minister has said about hoping that the UK will support such a resolution, but can he say more about what our Government are doing in the next two hours to convince the US at the minimum to abstain on the resolution to allow it through, or to support it?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady will know that Britain always takes a leading role in the drafting and execution of these resolutions. I can tell her that skilled British diplomats are using this time to try to secure an agreement on the Security Council resolution, which I hope may be passed tonight. I can give her no guarantee of that, but I can give her a guarantee that British diplomats are working flat out to achieve it.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her important urgent question. I hope that food will be taken to the Holy Family church shortly. I thank the Minister for his comments. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is looking after 1.4 million people in its camps, which is more than half the population of Gaza. On my visit to Palestine in May, we heard that UNRWA was struggling to find funding. Can we ensure that UNRWA is receiving the money and aid it needs to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians now and in the future?
Mr Mitchell
We are clear that UNRWA is playing a critical role in Gaza. We are very careful to ensure that the British taxpayers’ money we spend to support UNRWA is spent in the right way. We have significantly increased our support to UNRWA and the Americans have re-engaged in supporting UNRWA.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given the release of the latest Hamas video of three elderly male civilian hostages, does the Minister agree that in all the distress being experienced about events in Gaza, it is important that these innocent hostages do not become the forgotten element of the conflict? Will the Government continue to do all they can to ensure that their safe release is part of any negotiations designed to bring an end to the violence?
Mr Mitchell
I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. He will understand why it is unhelpful across the Floor of the House to discuss the details of the negotiations in respect of the hostages, but he may rest assured that we are acting in precisely the way he has set out.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
There are horrific accounts of sexual violence being perpetrated against hostages in this conflict, including the gang rape of women and genital mutilation. Will the Government stand firmly with the survivors of sexual violence, which should never be used as a tool of conflict, and do all possible to strengthen their access to justice?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend will know that this Government have made a particular and important intervention to try to stop gender-based violence, and in particular the use of sexual crimes in warfare. I can tell her that her view is well heard and well respected, and we will continue to do just that.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Can the Minister assure the House that should a vote on a ceasefire be brought forward today at the UN Security Council, the Government will not abdicate their responsibility to innocent children, women and men, and will vote for that ceasefire and not abstain?
Mr Mitchell
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government certainly will not abdicate our responsibility, but how the Government exercise our vote on the Security Council will depend on the text that is agreed.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The entire Bibas family, including 11-month-old Kfir Bibas, were kidnapped on 7 October. Does the Minister agree that preconditions for a ceasefire must include both the military defeat of Hamas and the return of all the hostages?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge in securing a sustainable ceasefire—many of us have been calling for a ceasefire for some time—is not just the immediate military concerns, but the allegations of war crimes. Just in the past week alone, the Minister will have seen Houthi forces attacking shipping in the Red sea. He will have seen the situation outlined so powerfully by our colleague, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), in the Holy Family church. On 11 December, when I asked the Minister about this issue, he told the House that the Government were continuing
“to identify and look for mechanisms for ensuring that there can be no impunity”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 618-19.]
for anybody who commits a war crime. Can he update us on whether he has identified such a mechanism and what that might be?
Mr Mitchell
The words I used were absolutely precise. The Government have no tolerance of impunity for those who commit war crimes. There are legal mechanisms and other mechanisms that are available and that we see every day in our papers, and the Government of course support those processes to ensure that there is not impunity for war crimes.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One hundred and twenty-nine hostages are still in captivity at the hands of the terrorist group Hamas. Despite diplomatic efforts, the international Red Cross has still not been given access to them. All we see is videos coming out. At the same time, the Hamas leadership is meeting in Turkey with other terrorist groups planning what they will do next. Irrespective of what the United Nations says, calling for a ceasefire just enables Hamas to regroup and set about their evil doings once again.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is why it is the policy of the Government and, as I understand it, the Opposition not to call for an immediate ceasefire. Hamas have made it clear that they will not respect or accept a ceasefire. Indeed, they want to repeat what happened on 7 October. Israel has an absolute right of self-defence to go after the people who perpetrated those terrible events on 7 October.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Human Rights Watch has warned that the Israeli Government are using the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in Gaza. Let us be clear, that is a war crime. Amnesty has similarly warned of war crimes, as has the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Surely the Government should not be standing by while Israel commits war crimes, but should be calling for an immediate ceasefire that could swiftly help prevent further such crimes. Does the failure to do so not risk complicity in those war crimes?
Mr Mitchell
The Government have heard the words of President Herzog that Israel will respect international humanitarian law, and the Government expect Israel to abide by the words of the President.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to a meeting of Hamas officials, including its deputy chairman and former leader, in Turkey recently, where Hamas set out their intent to carry on their brutal acts further to the 7 October massacre. What assessment has my right hon. Friend the Minister made of Turkey’s role in facilitating Hamas’s continuing war crimes, and how will he pursue accountability for supposed NATO allies and strategic partners?
Mr Mitchell
The Government make it clear to all countries where we stand on this. We do not think that a ceasefire at this time is possible or practical. We are seeking humanitarian pauses that are as long as possible to get aid in. We are in favour, when it is conceivably possible, of a sustainable ceasefire, and we hope that time will come as soon as possible.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Is the real reason why there are so many civilian casualties in Gaza not that Hamas have cruelly, deliberately and wilfully used the civilian population as cover, whether by operating from hospitals, firing from schools, storing weapons in people’s houses or hiding among the civilian population? Is that not the reason why we must not allow this terrorist group to continue to have a base from which to try to eliminate Israel, and why a ceasefire at present would stop the Israeli military fulfilling its obligation to protect its people in the long run by eliminating Hamas?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. While Israel uses its military forces to defend its civilian population, Hamas use their civilian population to defend Hamas.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last week’s comments from the Israeli ambassador, which effectively ruled out a two-state solution, serve as further evidence of the difference that exists between our aspirations for the region and those of both the Israeli Government and, of course, Hamas. Given the chasm that exists between those conflicting objectives, is it not time to urgently press for a permanent ceasefire to enable the diplomatic measures necessary to bring about consensus on a lasting peace?
Mr Mitchell
In respect of the comments made by the Israeli ambassador to the UK, the hon. Gentleman will have seen the response of the British Government and, in particular, the response of the Foreign Secretary. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question in respect of a permanent ceasefire, he will have heard not only what the Government have said, but what those on the Opposition Front Bench have said.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the United Kingdom Government urge the Government of Israel to ratify the Rome statute and thus become a state party to the International Criminal Court?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that Britain is a signatory to the International Criminal Court because we think that it is a vital piece of the international architecture, but it is for all countries to make their own decisions in that respect. He will know that a number of countries, including America, have so far declined to join.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Shot and killed for going to the toilet—the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has described just one example of what Palestinians in Gaza are going through. Our heart goes out to her and her family, but also to all the civilians in Gaza who are affected by such appalling treatment at the moment. Many Israeli leaders have openly pushed for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza strip and called for the second Nakba in Gaza. Will the Minister reassure the House that the British Government oppose any such attempt to forcibly expel and displace Palestinians from Gaza?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
With such death, devastation and destruction, which we have all seen unfold in real time, constituents are asking whether there are any British fingerprints or funding to be found behind the bullets and bombs used in the horror show of Gaza and the west bank. The Minister talks of a two-state solution but, as has been pointed out, the Netanyahu regime and its ambassador to the UK have rejected this. How can we allow the present tactics to go on unabated, when there is no clear picture on how and when this will end?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady’s point underlines the vital importance of moving to a political track as soon as it is possible to do so.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Britain must maintain that international law is followed on the international stage, specifically the protection of civilians, including innocent children. Does the Minister agree that although the humanitarian pause was an important step—testing the negotiation and mediation of intermediaries, and, of course, the release of hostages—only a lasting ceasefire will bring about the conditions for peace? Does he also agree—we have heard it here in the Chamber today—that the Israeli Government have to accept that for them to have statehood and live in peace, they must want the same for their neighbour too?
Mr Mitchell
That is why the Government are working towards a sustainable ceasefire. In the meantime, we are anxious to secure the necessary pauses so that aid can get into Gaza as speedily as possible.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. My heart goes out to her family and everybody else caught up in this dreadful conflict.
I welcome the words of the Foreign Secretary calling for a sustainable ceasefire, which must see all the hostages released and fighting on both sides end. We need to get the aid in. Will the Minister say more about how we will permanently end this cycle of violence? How do we get a two-state solution?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right that we are not calling for a ceasefire and hoping that somehow it becomes more permanent. What we are doing is calling for a sustainable ceasefire that allows us to move towards the political track, which will then deliver what he is calling for.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). As we all get ready to celebrate Christmas with our families, she will be thinking desperately about her family, and I think about all the families who will not be together this Christmas.
Pauses are not enough to allow the rehabilitation of vital infrastructure. Due to repeated shutdowns of communications and internet services, Gaza is now in danger of becoming an information vacuum. Transparency is absolutely essential for holding military forces to account and preventing further humanitarian atrocities. Will the Minister please update the House on how the UK is working to ensure that the power and communications infrastructure is restored, so that we can get help and clarity for those in desperate need?
Mr Mitchell
We are working to get to that point, but we are not there at the moment. We need to do everything we can to reconnect vital infrastructure that has been destroyed. It is not just about people suffering the effects of kinetic activity; it is also about the effect of the lack of food and growing disease. The hon. Lady may rest assured that, in respect of the infrastructure to which she refers, we will do everything we can when we get the opportunity.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I would like to be able to welcome the incremental move in the Foreign Secretary’s joint statement at the weekend, but given the desperate events in Gaza and the position of the vast majority of the rest of the world, these are just weasel words. The Government and those on the Labour Front Bench were rightly quick to condemn the heinous war crimes committed against civilians in Ukraine and by Hamas on 7 October. The Minister has repeatedly said that Israel needs to abide by international law, but he knows that Israel is not doing so. Is the cold-blooded killing of two civilian women seeking sanctuary in a church a war crime—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
In order to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I need to know the full facts, and I very much hope that the full facts will become available before too long.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The agenda of the Netanyahu Government is to save him from jail, wreak revenge on all Gazans for the crimes of Hamas, and recreate the Nakba in the occupied territories. The UK Government’s refusal to call for a ceasefire gives cover to this. How many tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians must be killed, and how many millions made refugees, starved or terrorised, before this Government call for it to stop, and to stop now?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the Government’s position; we are not providing cover for anything. We are insistent that international humanitarian law should be accepted and respected, and we will do everything we can to get to the position of a sustainable ceasefire, but, as he will accept, we are not there yet. In the meanwhile, it is important to press for opportunities to get humanitarian aid and support into Gaza, to help people who are in a terrible position.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is grave, with women and children sadly comprising the majority of civilian casualties. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must understand that he cannot attain lasting peace and security by razing Gaza to the ground, which must be condemned. We do not just need an immediate cessation of fighting or a temporary week-long ceasefire like the one we had recently; we need negotiations to enable an enduring and permanent ceasefire. What are the UK Government doing to work with our international allies to enable just that?
Mr Mitchell
The negotiations and discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu are widespread. The hon. Member will know that there have been regular discussions between our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the Foreign Secretary has been a part of them as well. Indeed, I think Sir Tony Blair will also see Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly. So the hon. Member can rest assured that the urgency of the situation is being well ventilated by senior British politicians.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)
Last week, I too had the honour of meeting the heroic Professor Abu Sitta, along with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) West and other colleagues from across the House. He gave the most harrowing account of his experience working as a surgeon, having to perform amputations on children without proper painkillers and using only vinegar and washing-up liquid to sterilise wounds due to Israel’s blockade on medical supplies. The doctor also spoke of the war crimes been committed, with the Israeli army dropping white phosphorus, which burns deep into the muscle and tissue of children, and snipers killing Palestinian doctors as they cared for the injured and dying. Will the Minister meet the professor to hear for himself about the unspeakable pain and suffering being meted out to innocent people and explain to him why this Government still refuse to condemn these heinous contraventions of international humanitarian law?
Mr Mitchell
Either I or another Foreign Office Minister will certainly be pleased to meet the professor. The harrowing evidence to which the hon. Member referred merely underlines the critical importance of moving towards a sustainable ceasefire and, in the immediate future, securing the humanitarian pauses that we are all seeking.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
While the Government should be leading the call for an immediate, complete and permanent ceasefire, what assurances has the Minister, the Foreign Secretary or indeed the Prime Minister had that actors in the conflict will abide by today’s UN Security Council resolution, should it pass?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member is asking me to prophesy about the future. Let us see if we can secure a UN Security Council resolution, and then we can move to trying to ensure that everyone honours it.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The shooting of Yotam Haim, Alon Shamriz and Samer Talalka—the three Israeli hostages who were carrying a white flag—as well as the attack on the Catholic church, belie the IDF’s claim that its actions are precise and intelligence-led. There is now strong evidence, I believe, of war crimes. I accept what the Minister has said about calling for a ceasefire, and I hope that we get an immediate ceasefire ahead of Christmas. Will he help me with how two families I have can get out of Gaza: Alaa Safi, who has lost 50 members of her family, and Enas Alaloul, who have nothing to do with Hamas?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member makes an important intervention about the humanitarian effects of what is going on in Gaza. But, as I have repeatedly said, that underlines the importance of the Government working day and night to try to deliver these pauses and then a sustainable ceasefire.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
May I impress on the Minister my constituents’ strength of support on the need for an immediate ceasefire, not only because of the starvation we are beginning to see and the children being treated with washing-up liquid and vinegar, but because 93 health workers have reportedly been detained, with no information on their whereabouts or wellbeing? Will the Minister give the Government’s assessment of the ability of the International Committee of the Red Cross to access health workers detained by Israeli forces?
Mr Mitchell
The position is unclear, but the Government’s focus is very clear: it is to deliver the humanitarian pauses that we require in order to secure the necessary humanitarian support inside Gaza.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Jabalia refugee camp, Shifa hospital, Omari mosque and the Holy Family church are all civilian targets that have been obliterated by Israeli bombing or attacked by IDF snipers. There are nearly 18,000 dead and nearly 1.5 million displaced. UN experts have warned that we are at risk of witnessing a genocide in the making in Gaza. Will the Minister now use all diplomatic measures, including sanctions, to compel Israel and Hamas to end alleged breaches of international law while also at last demanding a permanent, immediate ceasefire alongside the release of those hostages?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member will have heard what I have said about the plausibility of an immediate and permanent ceasefire. On his point about the civilians who are in such extreme jeopardy, he will be aware that Hamas quite deliberately use civilians to defend themselves and for military purposes. That makes the situation all the more difficult to reach the progress that we all want to see.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I hope that the Government can support a UN resolution today, but we desperately need an immediate ceasefire, to protect the civilian population in Gaza and to create the space for dialogue for a permanent ceasefire. Once we get to that point, how does the Minister see the UK’s role in getting to the political solution on the ground and, in particular, ensuring that the Palestinian population is not permanently displaced?
Mr Mitchell
I share with the hon. Member a view that a United Nations Security Council resolution is urgently needed, and I very much hope that it will be in a form that we can support shortly. With regard to a ceasefire, he will have heard what has been said from both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches about the plausibility of achieving that. With regard to the role that Britain will play once the sky clears and there is an opportunity for a political track, the Foreign Secretary is in the region today trying to advance precisely that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It has been seven days since the American President warned that Israel was in danger of losing global support because of its indiscriminate bombing in Gaza. That warning clearly has not been heeded. I note what the Minister has said about no impunity for war crimes, but that comes after the event. What signal will the UN send today to Israel to say that the line has clearly been crossed, we cannot support it, and we do not condone what it has been doing in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to say that there have been far too many civilian casualties in this fighting and that a more surgical approach is required. That is very much what the Prime Minister and the British Government have called for. We will continue to work towards a more sustainable cessation of hostilities and a sustainable ceasefire in the way that I have described.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website advises people who might be travelling to Ukraine:
“If you travel to Ukraine to fight, or to assist others engaged in the war, your activities may amount to offences under UK legislation and you could be prosecuted on your return to the UK.”
Why is there not a similar statement on the advice for travel to Israel?
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I quote from a newspaper opinion column:
“Even if Israel manages to destroy Hamas, a similar movement will undoubtedly emerge from the destitution and despair of the Gaza Strip.”
That was written by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in August 2014. What are the British Government doing to prevent the recurrence of the terrible violence we are seeing in another decade?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member is right to point to the fact that this dispute has continued down the years. He will also have noticed that it was after the crisis of the Yom Kippur war that progress was made politically, and then again after the first intifada. We must all hope that after this dreadful situation moves into a sustainable ceasefire, the political track is once again able to grip these issues and ensure that a brighter future awaits. It is an issue that has poisoned the well of international opinion in the middle east and deserves resolution so that the children of those involved today can enjoy a better life than their parents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response, and for and his and the Government’s stance on Hamas, which are clearly a terrorist group. They are the baby killers, rapists and killers of innocent people—not just Israelis but innocent Palestinians. That is who Hamas are, and they must be destroyed. Can the Minister confirm, on day 74 of Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorist murders, whether he believes that we have been able to exert any meaningful influence to bring positive steps forward for the release of the hostages?
Mr Mitchell
We are doing everything we possibly can to get the hostages out. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give the House a running commentary on that. In respect of his earlier comments, I thank him for his humanity and his wisdom. I wish a happy Christmas to him, you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House.
Ukraine
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
Since the Minister for the Armed Forces last updated the House on 28 November, the situation on the ground has remained largely unchanged. Ukraine has been fortifying its border with Belarus with dragon’s teeth, razor wire and anti-tank ditches, and is pivoting to a more defensive posture following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s call on 1 December for rapid fortification across the front.
On 12 December, Kyivstar, Ukraine’s largest mobile network operator, suffered a cyber-attack. The incident is likely one of the highest impact disruptive cyber-attacks on Ukrainian networks since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Russian air force is highly likely to have carried out the first use of the AS-24 Killjoy air-launched ballistic missile since August 2023. Killjoy has almost certainly had a mixed combat debut. Many of its launches have likely missed their intended targets, while Ukraine has also succeeded in shooting down examples of the supposedly undefeatable system.
We will continue to support priority areas for Ukraine in the coming months, including air defence and hardening critical national infrastructure sites. Our foundational supply of critical artillery ammunition continues. Most recently, on 11 December, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK will lead a new maritime capability coalition alongside Norway, delivering ships and vehicles to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to operate at sea. This represents a step change in the UK’s support for Ukraine in both defending against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion and developing Ukraine’s future maritime capability. The new coalition will deliver long-term support to Ukraine, including training, equipment, and infrastructure to bolster security in the Black sea. We could not be more clear: as the Prime Minster has said, we are in this for as much and as long as it takes.
The maritime capability coalition initiative reinforces our collective long-term commitment to Ukraine and provides a permanent mechanism through which we can support the development of Ukraine’s maritime capability. Agreed during recent meetings of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine defence contact group, it forms part of a series of capability coalitions to strengthen Ukraine’s operations in other domains including on land and in the air. On 13 and 14 December, the Ministry of Defence, along with the Department of Business and Trade, successfully conducted the first UK trade mission to Kyiv since the invasion in 2022. The mission enabled discussions with and between UK and Ukraine officials and industry on opportunities for long-term co-operation, and resulted in tangible agreements for industry.
The UK has committed £4.6 billion of military support to date, as we continue to donate significant amounts of ammunition and matériel from our own stocks, as well as those purchased from across the globe. In addition, we have trained more than 52,000 soldiers since 2015. The UK and our allies have been clear that we will not stand by as the Kremlin persists in its disregard for the sovereignty of Ukraine and international law. That includes the recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territorial waters, which is established in accordance with international maritime law.
John Healey
I thank the Minister for his words but, with due respect, the House should hear from the Defence Secretary himself. He may have urgent business today—we understand that—but he has been in post for four months and he has not made an oral statement in Parliament on Ukraine, from the top, to reassure Ukrainians that Britain will stand with them for as long as it takes to win, to warn President Putin that Britain remains resolute in confronting Russian aggression, and to explain to people why the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. This is a war in Europe. Last week, nearly two years on, Putin declared that his goals have not changed. If he prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is why the Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support for military aid to Ukraine and for reinforcing NATO allies.
Ukrainians face another winter with war, and another tough year beyond. Yesterday, a top general said that they face ammunition shortages across the entire frontline. At the very time Ukraine needs unfailing support, the UK is falling behind other nations: no new UK weaponry since July; no UK military funding for next year; and no 2024 plan for Ukraine. The UK is united behind Ukraine. I am proud of the UK leadership on Ukraine, but I want to be proud in six months’ time. When will the military aid funding for next year be agreed? Will it be multi-year? When will the international fund for Ukraine commit the half a billion pounds so far unspent? How many next-generation light anti-tank weapons have been produced under the new contract signed 12 months ago, and delivered to Ukraine? Another two minehunter ships were announced last week for Ukraine—the same ships pledged by Ministers in June 2021.
Madam Deputy Speaker, 2024 will be a critical year for Ukraine. We must have the Defence Secretary himself in the House to set out the UK’s plans—military, economic and diplomatic—to support Ukraine through 2024 and beyond.
James Cartlidge
I am extremely proud to stand here and defend the Government’s very strong record in supporting Ukraine. The Secretary of State gave a very important statement yesterday on the future of UK fast jet capability, and the trade mission that we sent to Ukraine last week makes it timely that I stand here now. The public understand the huge amount of support that we have given, and it is important to emphasise that we now need to move to the next phase—the long term—of helping Ukraine’s industry to support itself, working closely with Ukrainian partners. As procurement Minister, I have that as an absolute priority, as demonstrated in the last week by the trade mission.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s other points, I totally agree about the risk of Putin prevailing, and I am grateful for the cross-party support. On ammunition shortages, he specifically asked about NLAWs. Of course, that is not the only anti-tank weapon we have sent. In total, we have sent around 10,000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, plus about 4 million small-round ammo, 300,000 artillery shells, 20 AS90 self-propelled guns, a squadron of tanks and a huge amount of air defence systems and uncrewed systems. The list goes on: 82,000 helmets, and training for over 50,000 Ukrainians in the UK to enable them to go back and fight for the freedom of their country. I am very proud of that record, but the Prime Minister has been clear: we know there is much more to do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have sent a great deal of ammunition to Ukraine. The question is, have we been able to replace that ammunition, especially in the context of a war that seems to be attritional and likely to go on for a considerable amount of time?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, and always asks pertinent questions. My constituents strongly support the effort we have undertaken to give all the weapons we have to Ukraine—not all gifted from this country, it should be stressed. Equally, they want us to replenish those stocks. That is why we have already signed contracts for NLAWs and lightweight multi-role missiles, and we have already taken delivery of the Archer 6x6, which is the interim replacement for the AS90 gun. It happens in parallel. We have to keep supporting Ukraine but, absolutely, we put the additional money from the budget to support the replenishment of our own armed forces.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
We are approaching dangerous territory with regards to the west’s ongoing support for those who fight for our democracy and the rule of law in the trenches and farm buildings of eastern Ukraine. We see Putin’s plan to sit and wait while democracies lose interest in Ukraine come to fruition, in politically motivated budget wrangling in Washington, in the clientelism of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, in the exhausted replenishment efforts of the west’s defence industry and in the vagaries of the west’s media cycle. The west must act decisively and with endurance to thwart Putin’s plan, and the SNP stands fully behind the Government’s actions to deliver on that priority.
The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the UK will continue to support Ukraine in the defence against Putin. What further details can this Defence Minister provide about that, and about what discussions the Secretary of State for Defence—it is a pity that he is not here—has had with the Foreign Secretary about the continued support for Ukraine? What will it look like, and what will be the scale of it? Finally, can the UK Government encourage, through some means, the Government and the Prime Minister of Hungary to lift their block on EU funding for Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
I believe that until recently the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Defence Committee, and I am grateful for that support from him and from his party. He asked a number of questions, but I think the most important was the one about what we could say about the support we are providing for Ukraine right now.
In my opening remarks I emphasised the importance of the maritime capability coalition, and Members will be more than aware of the importance of the Black sea and getting grain out of Ukraine. Since that corridor reopened, some 5 million tonnes of grain have been exported, and it is extremely important for us to retain that. We should also recognise that Ukraine has had significant success in pushing the Russian fleet eastwards to enable that to happen. However, we must not be complacent, which is why we are providing this naval support. We and Norway are joint leaders of the MCC, and when I visited Norway last week, it was clear that we are very strong naval partners because of the shared threat to our home waters that we face from Russian submarines, but we will keep on looking at what more we can do, and I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their support.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
In response to the question from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), my hon. Friend referred to UK companies helping Ukraine to build out its own defence capabilities. That is obviously to be welcomed, but can he also reassure us that the work we are doing to resupply Ukraine is an opportunity we are seizing to broaden and deepen UK defence capabilities, so that in the worst-case scenarios we can enhance our own ability to restock ourselves and our allies?
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to take a question from my right hon. Friend. He was an excellent Minister for Defence Procurement and an excellent Minister generally, and I always enjoyed the many Cobra meetings that were overseen by him, but he speaks with equal strength from the Back Benches, and his question is very important. When it comes to opportunities for future industrial production in Ukraine, I would like to see an opportunity for us to work together for our mutual benefit to create ordnance not just for Ukraine but for ourselves, because maximising that demand signal is the best way in which to secure the strongest possible military industrial base.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I readily acknowledge the support that we have given to Ukraine to try and ensure that Putin cannot win. That is an objective shared in all parts of the House, but the scale of the conflict requires more, especially in the form of artillery and munitions. Why did it take the Government more than a year to sign the contract for new capacity for shell production, not only for Ukraine but to restock our own supplies?
James Cartlidge
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and he speaks with experience as a former Defence Minister, but we have signed the contract on the 155 shell, as the Prime Minister announced last July. That contract sits alongside many others, including the lightweight multi-role missile and STARStreak contracts. This is, of course, for our own defence, but, as I have said, we recently delivered the 300,000th artillery shell to Ukraine, and we should be proud of that effort.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is clearly very important that we support our friends in Ukraine, but it is equally important that we support our NATO allies in the region, such as Romania. My hon. Friend has mentioned the support being given in the Black sea. The port of Constanta is vital to the export of Ukrainian grain and other produce, so may I ask what extra support the Government are giving to Romania to ensure that this vital sea lane is kept free?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. I recently had the pleasure of meeting my Romanian counterpart in the main building at the Ministry of Defence, and we spoke about a number of issues. Like us, the Romanians are absolutely committed to supporting Ukraine. I think that Romania is one of the countries that are joining the MCC, but I will check that and write to my hon. Friend. We need to work closely with allies on these wider strategic issues.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Last month I was concerned to note that the Chancellor barely mentioned Ukraine in his autumn statement, and since then he has made hardly any new commitments to supporting its people. The Government and the Opposition have stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, and the UK must not waver in its leadership on this issue. Can the Minister reassure me—and, more important, can he reassure the families who have come from Ukraine and settled in my constituency—that the UK will be committed to supporting Ukraine in the coming months?
James Cartlidge
Absolutely: I can send that message to the families—and, by the way, the hon. Lady has also made an important point in reminding us of the huge generosity that we have shown by taking in so many of those families, a number of whom are in my constituency. I can certainly reassure her, on the basis of what has happened literally in the last week. We should be judged not by words but by action, having created a maritime coalition that will support the crucial strategic interests of the Black sea. I am talking about access to the Black sea, security, and the ability to get grain in and out. We have also continued to provide those crucial weapons, including air defence systems.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on their global leadership, which we all recognise, but a couple of matters concern me. First, the importance of supplying basic kit has been stressed by Members on both sides of the House. The supply of 155 and 155-2 shells is critical, and it needs a long-term plan. It is great that we have supplied 300,000 shells, but the Russians are using up to 15,000 shells a day, and the Ukrainians are responding with between 3,000 and 7,000, so this is a massive artillery war. Secondly, Putin’s regime is gaining ground politically because the Russians are holding ground while they target western support. So the long-term supply is critical physically, but it is also critical in terms of the message we send that we are not cutting and running but are in for the long haul.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend, who of course served in intelligence, makes some excellent points. On the particular importance of artillery, I have already spoken about the volume of shells and the guns that have been gifted, but I should add the spare parts to support them, which are easy to forget about. I spoke earlier about the Ukraine defence contact group. I recently attended a Teams call with all my fellow Ministers involved in that, under US leadership. Country after country listed its latest gifting, including artillery and many other munitions. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that we need a long-term plan. I think there is huge determination across the west and all our allies to continue this effort. Of course it is challenging, but that is why we need to bring in that additional element of ensuring that Ukrainian industry can start to rise to the occasion.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The language from the Government remains robust, but the details of practical help, military and otherwise, are lacking. There are 12 days left of this year, and we still do not have a full schedule for what aid the Government will provide for 2024. When can we expect to have it?
James Cartlidge
I respect the hon. Gentleman, with whom I spent time at the Ministry of Justice, but he has suggested that this is “talk”. We are one of the key reasons why Ukraine is still a free country. It has regained about 50% of the land taken by Russia, and we played a decisive role in that. I know that there is strong consensus on keeping it going, but I hope that that can be recognised. I have already listed the enormous amount of ordnance that we have provided: 300,000 artillery shells and 400 million rounds of ammunition. Of course we want to keep on doing that, and we are. I have also explained how we will be supporting Ukraine in the naval domain, which I believe will be crucial.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My constituency has warmly welcomed many Ukrainians to our community, and we are supportive of the UK Government’s ongoing efforts to back Ukraine and our NATO allies. Can my hon. Friend update the House on the support for Ukraine’s own military industrial capacity?
James Cartlidge
That too is an excellent question. I spoke earlier about the visit last week. Why is that so important? It is important because, as I said, we know there is huge support across the country, and indeed across Parliament, for the efforts that we have undertaken to support Ukraine. However, we now need to help its industry to support it. I think that our defence industry, which is world-leading, can play a key role in that, and I am very pleased that major UK primes were out there last week, already starting to sign agreements with their Ukrainian counterparts.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
In July this year, I had the opportunity to visit Ukraine with Siobhan’s Trust and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). It was clear that many of the soldiers were being injured and were not receiving enough support, and also that training was a huge issue. I realise that there are sensitivities surrounding what western countries can do when it comes to providing training, but can the Minister explain what kind of help is being provided for soldiers, in terms of recovery but also to ensure that they have proper support so that they are not going into conflict—into war—unprepared?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady asks an excellent question on training. It was one of my most insightful visits as a Defence Minister early on to go to Salisbury plain and see the Irish Guards, together with our New Zealand and Australian colleagues, training Ukrainians who, let us be frank, would have some weeks of training then go out to experience pretty severe trench warfare. I am proud of the role we played in that, but she is right to say that a crucial part of it is the medical element. I believe that we have trained around 65 medical personnel, but I will check that detail and write to her, because this is important.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Recently the United States has been wobbling over funding. What assessments do our Government make of that and of how we engage in Ukraine? This is the second Christmas that many Ukrainians will be experiencing in a time not in peace. Could the Minister send the Government’s gratitude to organisations such as the Ukrainian Social and Cultural Centre in Bolton, headed by Yaroslaw Tymchyshyn, during what should be a joyous time for families around the world but is a difficult time for the Ukrainian community?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the community groups supporting Ukraine. On his other point about the US, I can only speak from my own experience. I referred to the contact group meeting we had on Teams recently. Secretary Austin led that from the beginning to the end, emphasising all the way through that as far as he was concerned, the US was in it for the long haul. I believe that that is the case. This is about freedom. Freedom is at stake here. We have fought this far to protect it, and we have to keep doing that job if we are to defend freedom across our continent.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
In August this year, the then Defence Secretary said that he would publish the action plan for Ukraine in 2023. Will it be published before the end of the year?
James Cartlidge
I simply say to the right hon. Lady, as I have been saying throughout, that we are delivering action every week in Ukraine. The amount of ordnance we have supplied and continue to supply—particularly in terms of air defence, which is now increasingly crucial—is huge. I have listed the many numbers. Some of it, of course, we cannot talk about. There are technologies that we are testing out there, ensuring that our munitions are successful. What I can say is that if we look at the work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, for example—as I say, I cannot talk about the detail—we can see that it has had a huge bearing on the impact of what we have donated into theatre.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the support that the Government have given, and indeed the lead that they have taken, in ensuring that while others were dragging their feet we gave support to Ukraine in its vital defence of freedom. As it is clear that the Russians are now settling in for a long war, consolidating the ground that they have taken and hoping to sit out the west’s opposition to their invasion, can the Minister give us some indication whether he is ensuring that we have the physical capacity to continue our support and that we are making the necessary financial commitments? What plans does he have to launch a diplomatic offensive to ensure that people stay in line on giving support to Ukraine?
James Cartlidge
We are trying to do all those things. I should like to put on record that it was an absolute pleasure to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to launch Armed Forces Week back in the summer. I know that he is a passionate supporter of our armed forces and of our efforts in Ukraine, and that he shares my pride in the provision of NLAW, which is made in Belfast. He is absolutely right on all those counts, and on the diplomatic one in particular. There’s huge unity in the west. We all know that the stakes are incredibly high, but we now have to persist. We are all in it for the long haul.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is clearly Putin’s strategy to sit this out as long as is necessary in the hope that Ukraine’s allies lose the political will to provide the support that has been there so far. In that regard, the Foreign Secretary indicated to the other place earlier this month that he was prepared to increase the amount of funding available to Ukraine next year. Is the Minister able to confirm that that is indeed the case and tell us how much additional funding will be in place?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these matters are still under discussion. The Prime Minister has been clear about the strength of our commitment, and I go back to the previous point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), which backs this up. A huge way in which we have ensured support and funding for Ukraine is not just from what we have provided but by being a convenor of an international effort. We have played a decisive role in that, but of course there is more to do.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Those of us on the SNP Benches remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine in its defence against its unprovoked Russian aggressor. Ukraine has been given substantial support by a great many countries, particularly the UK and the USA, but as we have heard, that support is under threat. How concerned is the Minister about the rhetoric on Ukraine aid that is coming from the US Republicans driven by Donald Trump, who is too busy praising Vladimir Putin, and about what that means for the US’s aid to Ukraine in the long term?
James Cartlidge
I respect the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I hear nothing but total support for Ukraine from the US Administration. They recognise the strategic issues. Let us be clear about this. To all voices in the US and elsewhere, this is not just about Ukraine. As the shadow Secretary of State said earlier, we should not underestimate what the impact would have been, had Russia succeeded early on in terms of other strategic issues, not least China and so on. We have to see the big picture, and that means standing together as allies.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister is clear about the support for Ukraine from the UK, but does he agree that it is important that we keep full support from our NATO allies? Two weeks ago at the transatlantic NATO forum, I and other delegates were concerned about the lukewarm response from certain members of Congress on continuing support. What more can we do to get the message across to members of Congress that the commitment is not only solid here but also backed by cash, with around $133 billion coming from the UK and the European institutions?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; this follows on from the previous point. As I said, when I look at the US I see steadfast support in the Administration in terms of the enormous amount of munitions they have provided and in many other ways, including financially, and I hope that that can continue. My observation from the contact group was that, day to day, they are leading that and ensuring that we, with them, continue to convene other nations. But the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we all need to be in it for the long haul.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister obfuscated and did not properly answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), so let me try again. In a bid to provide long-term certainty of UK support for our friends in Ukraine to help repel Russia’s invasion, the Defence Secretary’s predecessor last August promised a 2023 action plan for Ukraine, but it is still nowhere to be seen and there are less than two weeks of 2023 left. So, Minister, why has this action plan not been published and when will it be?
James Cartlidge
I was not obfuscating; I was simply referring to the actual actions we have been delivering on the ground, day in, day out, in Ukraine right from the beginning and before—after all, we have been training Ukrainians since 2014. So yes, we are delivering action on the ground and it has helped to keep Ukraine a free country, largely.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The signals that we send from this place are obviously important, as I am sure the Minister will agree, and in the messages that we are hearing from the EU and the US there is perhaps some wavering going on. I come back to the previous question and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South. Will the Minister commit today to publishing the action plan for Ukraine before the end of this year?
James Cartlidge
Well of course, this is the last sitting day. I would simply say—[Interruption.] I might sound like a stuck record, but this is so important. In this game, what matters is what we actually do on the ground. We have just announced a maritime coalition. We continue to send air defence systems, which are incredibly important. We have sent 300,000 artillery shells, thousands and thousands of helmets, 4 million pieces of small arms ammo. This is what matters. This is the action that delivers. We know there is more to do, and we are going to keep playing that role.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Russian energy giant Gazprom earned £39 million last year from the North sea Sillimanite gas field, which is partly underneath UK waters. Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state and is Russia’s largest taxpayer. Will the Minister talk to his counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade to avoid a situation where UK defence is giving generous military aid while the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation overlooks the Russian state funding of its aggression from the proceeds of the sale of North sea gas?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Two years in and the hardship and devastation continue for the people of Ukraine, especially as we enter the harsh winter months. Western officials have repeatedly assessed that Russian forces are currently firing artillery at a rate five to seven times greater than their Ukrainian counterparts. What more are the Government doing to ensure an adequate supply of ammunition for Ukraine to win this war?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about the issues arising as we move into winter, which obviously brings its own challenges. I have spoken about the significant amount of ordnance supplied to date. As she knows, we do not talk about the specifics of how it arrives in country. Needless to say, we work strongly with our allies and, of course, with the Ukrainian armed forces. The key point is that we continue to work strongly on supplying munitions into Ukraine, but our trade mission was one of the most important developments because we now have to focus on helping Ukrainian industry to manufacture its own arms. We want to do that jointly with Ukraine. We have a strong track record of world-leading defence businesses, which is part of the key to this.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive response. No one, inside or outside this House, can doubt the commitment of the United Kingdom Government and Ministers to helping Ukraine.
As the hustle and bustle of Christmas is upon us, it is easy for us to forget that Ukraine is still at war and holding its own against Russian aggression. Can the Minister update the House on how families with children are receiving aid and education to ensure that we do not have a lost generation of young adults with no learning and no vocational training?
James Cartlidge
As ever, we save the best for last. It is always a pleasure to take questions from the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such passion and compassion. He is absolutely right about this important issue. We have been talking about financial support and, as he will be aware, the totality of our support to Ukraine—not just military aid but humanitarian aid—is £9.3 billion. Of course we need to focus on the humanitarian side but, ultimately, I feel most proud of our contribution when I imagine what would have happened if Ukraine had been totally conquered. That does not bear thinking about.
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are about to proceed to the statement on housing. Before I call the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety to make the statement, I must say to the House that Mr Speaker is seriously concerned that the ministerial code may have been broken.
It will be obvious to the House that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is not here to make the statement, which is not unusual. The Minister is here, and we welcome him, but I remind the House of the following provisions of the ministerial code. In paragraph 9.1:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
In paragraph 9.3:
“Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess.”
The House may not be aware, but Mr Speaker is aware, that the Secretary of State held a televised press conference just after 12 o’clock today—while this House was sitting but while it was still dealing with questions, as we always do between 11.30 am and 12.30 pm—and that just after 12.30 pm, while the House was dealing with questions and some two hours before the Minister came to the House, the Secretary of State made this statement to journalists.
Several Members have, not surprisingly, made very reasonable complaints to Mr Speaker about this very serious discourtesy to the House, and it really must be noted that it is not a trivial matter. A senior Secretary of State made an important policy announcement on television, and now the Minister—I place no blame upon the Minister, whom we welcome to the House—is here two hours later. This is a gross discourtesy to this House.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I cannot take a point of order until after the statement. I think it would be best to leave points of order, unless they relate absolutely directly to what I have just said.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Then I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.
John Spellar
Does it not show contempt, not only for Members of Parliament and this House but for our constituents, on whose behalf we speak, that the Secretary of State made this statement to journalists rather than to this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope that is the point I have just made to the House. I take it that he agrees with what I, on behalf of Mr Speaker, have just said. It is a gross contempt.
Several hon. Members rose—
We will take points of order after the statement, but it is only fair that we hear the Minister.
Long-term Plan for Housing
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s commitment to house building and the planning policy reforms we are making today.
This Government want to build more homes in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We know that the right way to deliver this is through a reformed planning system. Today, the Secretary of State and I are laying out our plan for that reform, and we are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and the assets that matter most, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered.
Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, for hospitals and general practitioner centres, for schools, for power grid connections and more. It lays the foundations for our economic growth and the levelling up of our communities. The first change we are making today is to update the national planning policy framework. We consulted on a series of proposals last December and received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through in detail.
The resulting update builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State last year, and it does so in a way that will promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and give local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development.
I will now summarise the key changes being made to the framework today, and hon. Members should refer to the consultation response and the framework itself for the published policies. First, the standard method for assessing local housing need figures has sometimes been difficult to apply in some areas, and has been blind to the exceptional characteristics of local communities. The new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for establishing an area’s housing requirement.
The revised NPPF also now provides more clarity on what may constitute exceptional circumstances for using an alternative method to assess housing need. The framework is also clear that the urban uplift should be accommodated in the urban areas in which it is applied, and should not be exported unless there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement in place. New homes are most desperately needed in urban areas, so it is essential that city councils plan properly for local people.
Secondly, given the importance of the green belt to so many, the new NPPF is clear that there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green belt boundaries. Unlike Labour’s plan to concrete over the countryside, we will not impose top-down release of green-belt land against the wishes of local communities. Where a relevant local planning authority chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, and this should only be through the preparation or updating of plans. The Government are making no changes to the rules that govern what can and cannot be built on green-belt land, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield development can occur on the green belt, provided that the openness of the green belt is not harmed.
Thirdly, the Government are clear that the character of an existing area should be respected, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations in plan making where significant uplifts in urban residential densities would be inappropriate, as they would be wholly out of character with that existing area. In these cases, authorities need not plan for such development. That will apply where there is a design code that is adopted, or will be adopted, as part of the local plan. I know the shadow Minister will sympathise with this change, given that he recently opposed 1,500 new homes in his constituency due to the impact on Greenwich’s local character.
Fourthly, where an up-to-date plan is in place—a plan less than five years old—and contained a deliverable five-year supply of land when examined by the inspector, authorities will no longer be required to update that supply annually. This change provides those authorities with additional protection from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are also fully removing what are known as the 5% and 10% buffers, which could be applied to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement will ensure that decision making on live applications is not affected, thus avoiding disruption to applications in the system. For authorities that have not yet passed examination but are either at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage, and have both a policy map and proposed allocations, there will be a two-year grace period in which they need to demonstrate only a four-year housing land supply for decision making. That is a strong incentive for councils to now do the right thing and agree a local plan.
Fifthly, local communities that have worked hard to put neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The new NPPF therefore extends protection for neighbourhood plans from speculative development from two to five years, where those plans allocate at least one housing site. The updated framework also gives greater support to self-build, custom-build and community-led housing, and to encouraging the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes.
Next, the NPPF cements the role of beauty and placemaking in the planning system; it now expressly uses the word “beautiful” in relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater “visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning conditions and supports gentle density through the promotion of mansard roof development. Finally, the new NPPF also strengthens protections for agricultural land, by being clear that consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural land for food production in development decisions. The NPPF also supports the Government’s energy security strategy, by giving significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage.
With the updated NPPF now in place, the other reforms we are making today are focused on setting higher expectations for performance. Those who operationalise the system—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—must live up to their responsibilities. To support that, we are taking action on four fronts. First, we will ensure greater transparency, because exposing what is really going on in a system sparks action. So we will publish a new local authority performance dashboard in 2024, and pull back the veil on the use of extension of time agreements, which in too many instances are concealing poor performance.
Secondly, we have been providing, and will continue to provide, additional financial support. That includes the increased planning fees that went live a fortnight ago, as well as a range of funds to tackle backlogs and improve capability. Thirdly, we will tackle slow processes, with Sam Richards leading a review into the statutory consultee system and a greater focus from the Planning Inspectorate where planning committees are seeing their decisions overturned on appeal.
Finally, we will intervene where we need to. The Secretary of State has issued a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they fail, we will consider further intervention. We are also designating two additional authorities for their decision-making performance and we will review the thresholds for designation to make sure to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better.
We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. A review launched today will identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much-needed homes. If directing change in London becomes necessary, this Government will do that.
In designing these reforms we have aimed to facilitate desirable development, constrained only by appropriate protections. That is a balance I am confident we have struck.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nothing screams long-term housing plan quite like a statement from the 16th Housing Minister since 2010 outlining the fourth set of changes to the national planning policy framework in as many years. As ever with this Government, the reality in no way matches the rhetoric, as we see with the headline announcements made to the press—not this House—over the past 24 hours. Not only are they seemingly at odds with the Government’s stated wish to give local communities more of a say about the placement of new developments; the truth is that the ink will barely be dry on outline plans for the proposed expansion of Cambridge by the time the general election is called. The punitive and nakedly political interventions that Ministers are working up for London ahead of the mayoral election will, likewise, do nothing in practice to resolve the constraints that they themselves have imposed on house building in the capital, not least by leaving industry completely in the dark when it comes to second staircase regulations for tall buildings, at a cost of thousands of new homes.
When it comes to meaningful support for small and medium-sized house builders, the Government have been talking, literally for years, about the various ways in which they need greater support while presiding over their continued decline. Far from unlocking a new generation of home building, as the Secretary of State has claimed, the detailed changes being made to the NPPF today will almost certainly further suppress collapsing house building rates. Let us be clear: although there have been minor tweaks, the changes being made are those that the Government, in their weakness, promised the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Tory Back Benchers they would enact back in December last year in order to stave off a rebellion on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That is precisely why the members of that group are so pleased with the ”compromise” they have secured today.
I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister, starting with the impact of these changes on overall housing supply. Whether it is the softening of land supply requirements or the listing of various local characteristics that would justify a deviation from the now only advisory standard method, can he confirm that the changes made to the NPPF, taken together, will give those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal local targets imply? If he disputes that that will be their effect, what technical evidence can he provide to demonstrate that these changes can be reconciled with a boost to housing delivery?
I turn to the Government’s 300,000 annual housing target, which the Secretary of State recommitted himself to today. How on earth does the Minister imagine that the changes that have been made to the rules around plan making will help the Government finally meet that target, particularly given that the arbitrary 35% urban uplift has been retained but the requirement for local planning authorities to try to meet it out of area in co-operation with their neighbours if they cannot do so alone has been removed? Can the Minister finally provide a convincing explanation of how and when the Government’s 300,000 homes a year target will be met? Or is it the case that it remains alive in name only, abandoned in practice even if not formally abolished?
Let me turn to local plan coverage. In many ways, the revised NPPF speaks to a planning framework that does not actually exist, because under this Government we have a local plan-led system in which only a minority of local authorities have up-to-date plans. According to the most recent figures, just 33% have local plans that have been adopted or reviewed within the past five years and only 10 new plans have been submitted for examination this year—in part, this is because of the chilling effect of the Government’s December 2022 concession. Yet only now, in the dying days of this Government, are Ministers seemingly getting a bit more serious about intervening to drive up coverage.
In The Times today, the Secretary of State announced a new three-month deadline for up-to-date local plans to be submitted. Will the Minister outline the thinking behind that timeframe and tell us what happens if multiple local authorities fail to meet the new March deadline? In his Times interview, the Secretary of State suggested that local authorities that miss that deadline will have development forced on them and their powers to delay applications removed. Can the Minister tell us precisely how that would be achieved? The Secretary of State also suggested that recalcitrant councils will be stripped of their planning responsibilities. Can the Minister tell us who will take them on, given that the Planning Inspectorate clearly does not have the capacity to do so?
Finally, although it is the Government’s contention that the changes made today will boost local plan coverage, surely the Minister recognises that even if that is ultimately their effect, it will be at the cost of overall housing supply because it will entail the enactment of numerous plans that will not meet the needs of local communities in full. In short, isn’t the truth of the matter that today’s changes entail a deliberate shift from a plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet housing need, to one geared toward providing only what the politics of any given area allow, with all the implications that entails for the housing crisis and economic growth?
Lee Rowley
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years. If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to do.
The difference between my party and that of the Opposition spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion. Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make progress on housing in general.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance that applies in their local area. If that were not possible, there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However, on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to build more homes that have the consent and support of the community in which they will be built.
The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities and would not be exported into the countryside near cities, because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in those cities. There are schools in London that are closing because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that infrastructure—including transport links and educational establishments—as was intended when it was built.
This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality. If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I will not listen to them.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Before talking about the general policy, may I mention one small point? In paragraph 22 of his statement, the Minister talks about energy efficiency in heritage buildings. In Ambrose Place in Worthing—including at the house of one of my neighbours, where Harold Pinter lived—people are being told that they can have only secondary glazing, not double glazing, because it is in a conservation area. I hope that the Minister will talk with experts and say that double glazing is acceptable in reasonable circumstances, when people want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.
On the general point, the Minister mentions the green belt. According to one calculation, there are 16 green belts in England, none of which is in East Sussex or West Sussex. I interpret his words as meaning “green gaps”: an expression used by the Secretary of State when he commented on the problems of Worthing, where every single bit of grass—the vineyards, the golf courses and the green fields—between Worthing and its neighbours to the west is subject to a planning application. It is important that the inspectors in his Department do not come along, as they did over the land north of Goring station, to Chatsmore Farm and the Goring Gap and say that even if Worthing built on every bit of lawn in town, it would not meet the full target, and yet give permission to build on that farm, which distinguishes Worthing from its neighbours.
It is also important to follow up the Minister’s words about intense development in the centre of villages, towns and cities, so that there are homes in high-density accommodation that elderly people can choose to live in, so that their family homes can be freed for families. The idea that most of the development on our green fields is for families is for the birds—it is for people on their second or third homes. I think people who are my sort of age ought to have the choice to live securely in high-thermal efficiency apartments, with services that do not require cars, and where they can live more easily and happily.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend makes an important point about energy efficiency, which I am happy to talk to him about in more detail. He is a champion for Worthing West. I have family who live close to Worthing, and know the Goring Gap well. He makes a strong point about the importance of preserving character and ensuring communities build the right homes in the right places, while recognising that there are places where that should not be the case. I am always happy to talk to him about that.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
This morning, the Secretary of State complained about house prices. If the Government are now rightly acknowledging the impact of spiralling mortgage payments on our constituencies, when will they apologise for the cause of that—their disastrous mini-Budget?
Lee Rowley
I am glad to see that the talking points have already started from the Opposition Back Benches. Despite choosing not to acknowledge it, the hon. Lady will know that interest rates have risen across the world, followed by a normalisation of interest rates for a number of months as a recognition of changed economic circumstances. If the hon. Lady and her party want to continue to make mischief and nuisance about that, it is their right to do so, but that does not accurately reflect what has happened. This Government will always try to work through those difficult situations and improve things for the people of this country.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 12 months, in writing and at the Dispatch Box, Ministers have consistently said that when making a local plan, planning authorities will be able to take into account historically high house building levels by lowering the amount of housing they need to plan for? Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has delivered exceptional levels of house building, with new homes for 150,000 people over the last five decades. How will the Government now make good on their year-long commitment to recognise Basingstoke’s almost unique position by doing whatever is needed to support the planning authority to successfully agree a revised local plan, with significantly lower overall house building figures because of the very high amount of house building over the last five decades?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend is right that we consulted on that subject. In recognition of that consultation, we have chosen not to take forward the over-supply point at this time, but we are open to looking at it and reviewing it in the future. I accept Basingstoke’s particular circumstances, and have spoken to her separately about the recognition that there has been substantial building in Basingstoke over many decades. I am happy to talk to her about the exceptional circumstances provision and look at exactly how that may apply to Basingstoke.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York is now the 15th least affordable place to live in the country. My constituents will have no confidence in what the Minister and the Secretary of State have set out today, because they have been waiting for a local plan for 76 years and counting. The sticking point has been with the Government Department, not the will of the Labour council. When will York receive its local plan, be able to protect the precious space we have and build the tenure of housing we need, as opposed to developers moving in and building luxury flats that no one can afford?
Lee Rowley
We are keen to ensure that local plans progress as quickly as possible, not just for York but for every other council that chooses to pursue the process, and we will continue to add support and capacity into the system to ensure that that happens.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the written ministerial statement—as opposed to the oral statement we have just heard—there is a strong suggestion that there will be a review of London and the centre of London. One challenge we face in suburban London is that planning applications for high-density, very tall buildings—normally comprising units of two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one shared living space—are very suitable for young professionals, but totally useless for families. There is a shortage of family accommodation in outer London, and people would welcome more houses but not high-density flats.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a balance must be struck. We will review the situation in London. We do not think that it is acceptable; we do not think that the Mayor has done his job in this regard and we will be reviewing that. We also recognise—I hope my comments earlier indicated this—that there are places in urban areas where character is very important, and we need to make sure that there is an appropriate balance in that regard.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Liberal Democrat-led St Albans City and District Council is rightly pressing ahead with the development of its local plan, after the previous Conservative administration had its plan thrown out by the inspector. Two years ago, I wrote to the Government requesting additional funding so that we could accelerate our plan-making process, but the Government said no. I then requested that they allow us to charge developers the full cost of processing applications, but, even with all the tinkering, we are still not able to do that, and taxpayers in St Albans are still subsidising developers to the tune of £3 million a year to process their applications. Today the Government have asked our local council to publish a timetable in the next 12 weeks, but if Ministers and their officials used Google, they would find it on the website.
Apparently, Ministers have announced that the new protections apply to areas with local plans, but not to areas with draft local plans. That means that in St Albans, villages such as Colney Heath, which are besieged by inappropriate development, will not benefit from the protections. Will the Minister confirm whether our local district council and planning inspectors can firmly say no to inappropriate, speculative development, or is this just another empty promise from this Government?
Lee Rowley
I believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in charge of St Albans City and District Council since 2019. That is four and a half years of opportunity to put a local plan in place. It is on the Liberal Democrats for failing to do so. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could explain whether, as part of that local plan, they will take their share of the 380,000 homes that their conference said they needed to build in the future.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I ask the Minister for a very clear answer on the controversial matter of housing targets? Basically, there are two ways of doing it: we can have mandatory targets, where the man in Whitehall knows best and hands down to local authorities a target with which they have to comply whether or not it is sensible, or we can have advisory targets, where the Department can recommend a target, but if the locally elected councillors and the people whom they represent know that it is too high and can give strong reasons why—for instance, if their district or borough has a large amount of green belt—they can legitimately push back in their plan and offer a lower number. So there is the mandatory option, which is the Labour option, and the advisory option, which is the Conservative option. Is my understanding correct?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. For the first time ever, the NPPF says, at paragraph 61:
“The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point”.
Then there are potentially exceptional circumstances that can be discussed with a representative of the Government—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—and the case can be made and then discussed. If that is accepted, an alternative approach can be taken.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Our country is facing a housing crisis and, after more than 13 long years, the Government have utterly failed the nation. Data from Glenigan published this week show that planning consents are at a record low, 20% down on last year, and they are due to become the lowest in a decade next year. Fifty-eight local housing authorities have scrapped or delayed their local plan as a direct result of the Secretary of State’s flip-flopping on housing targets last year. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s flip-flopping and dither and delay are having a significant downward effect on planning and housing delivery?
Lee Rowley
I have the greatest of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but we need to have a serious conversation about this. Planning consents are down because planning applications are down, and that is due to the global economic challenges. [Interruption.] Labour’s Front-Bench team do not want to accept that there are global economic challenges. That just demonstrates why they are so unready for the government of this country. We are trying to make sure, first, that we work through the global financial challenges and, secondly, that we still build the homes. One way that we undermine the building of more homes—the kind of homes that I know the hon. Gentleman and I would both like to see—is by not taking communities with us. What we seek to do today is inject more balance into the system so that we can take more communities with us. If we can get more plans in place, it usually means that more homes are delivered in the first place.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for recognising the hard work that local communities such as Hallow, Clifton upon Teme, Kempsey and Welland have done in my largely rural constituency to develop neighbourhood plans, the strengthening of which has been announced today. None the less, those communities are being let down by the fact that our council is run by the independents and Greens, who do not have a local plan in place. Can he tell us whether the additional protections from speculative development will be immediate or retrospective? When will they take effect?
Lee Rowley
I am a huge fan of neighbourhood plans, as are many of my colleagues across the House. They give communities the opportunity to get involved in the planning process and to get into the detail. They also often demonstrate that having honest conversations with people about planning can take some of the challenge out of the system. We are updating the NPPF with regard to neighbourhood plans, and we are strengthening them, as my hon. Friend outlined. The NPPF is extant from the moment that it is uploaded. There are some indications at the back of the plan where policies take priority at a later date, but we are committed to putting neighbourhood planning at the centre of our planning policy, because we think that it is very successful and helpful for our communities.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am somewhat perplexed by the renewed focus on strengthening local plans given the abolition of the mandatory housing targets that underpin delivery against them. Indeed, the Minister appears to be outlining a situation in which local authorities can game the system and deliberately plan to under-deliver if they have an up-to-date local plan, but a local authority that is delivering can be stripped of its planning powers because its plan is not up to date. If the Minister is so committed to accelerating housing delivery, why is he creating a situation in which we are both preventing greenfield building and stopping significant increases to urban density?
Lee Rowley
We are not preventing increases of urban density. Indeed, we want that to happen. We recognise that there are considerations around things such as second staircases, which we are working at pace to resolve as quickly as possible. We want more homes. We recognise that the infrastructure is often in place in urban areas, and we are keen to take up that infrastructure to be able to unlock those homes for people who need them.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
If I may take the Minister back to paragraph 61, will he confirm that the inclusion for the very first time in the NPPF of the words “advisory starting point” will have an impact on both the level of targets set and the weight to be given to a target? How, in practice, will that change the approach taken by planning inspectors when they approve plans and decide on individual planning appeals?
Lee Rowley
It is absolutely the case that the purpose of amending the national planning policy framework today is so that this information and wording, and the insertion of the advisory starting point and everything that follows, are taken into account in the process, and it is important that the planning inspector does that. Obviously, every single council is different, and we have set out the reality that each individual council will need to go through this process, but that should absolutely be taken into account.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I must say to the Minister that we have been here before with housing targets; I seem to remember Mr John Prescott—Lord Prescott—putting this forward. One of the problems we have is that, in a vast area that includes places such as the Somerset levels, Exmoor and many others, sometimes it is very difficult to build housing. However, where we have an irresponsible council—Liberal Democrat, obviously, in Mid Devon—we have another problem, because they do not care. They do not listen. They are there just to cause trouble at every level. The Minister must make sure that the safeguards are there for people who live in these areas—not hope; we need actual safeguards.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we have been clear with a number of councils today that they need to get on with things. The whole point is that we put in place a process and a system that work and, for those actors that do not go through it, there are consequences.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In constituencies such as mine, the green belt is vital to protecting us from the urban sprawl of Birmingham, so I welcome the statement, so far as it goes with its protections for the green belt. However, can the Minister provide greater clarity on the matter of targets? It would be very helpful to have a clear understanding of what is meant by the advisory starting point and its impact on any ongoing mechanisms to impose the quotas of other authorities on a neighbour.
Lee Rowley
On my right hon. Friend’s second point—I am grateful to her for raising it—the duty to co-operate has been superseded. The point of the advisory starting point is to be very clear that individual circumstances might apply within the context of the need to build more homes in the right place. I cannot pre-empt or suggest exactly what that will mean in all instances. There is an example in the NPPF of where we think that is likely to be relevant, but obviously that will be discussed on a case-by-case, council-by-council basis.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I am encouraged by his words on provision of care and retirement housing and his focus on design quality. I have no doubt that we need more homes, but green spaces and the green belt are of critical concern in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Can he tell me a little more about the safeguards for the green belt under the Conservative party, particularly compared with the Labour party?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the importance of older people’s housing. We are currently in the process of supporting an older people’s housing taskforce, and I look forward to its recommendations about how to improve it for the long run. The green belt protections remain today as they were yesterday. What we are putting around them is a clearer process about where the case for exceptional circumstances can be made. It will be down to individual councils, with their individual circumstances, individual beauty and individual environment, to make that case where they feel it is appropriate to do so.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Communities in South Ribble, including Eccleston, Mawdesley and Croston, are subject to Chorley Council. I understand that Chorley is one of only two councils designated for poor planning performance. Does the Minister believe that that poor performance is due to Chorley’s failure to produce a local plan to protect South Ribble residents from inappropriate planning applications?
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is a huge champion for her constituents in South Ribble. We need local plans in place. I saw when I first became an MP in North East Derbyshire, where the Labour council failed to put a local plan in place, the huge issues that causes for communities. I know there are other councils all around the country that fail to do that, and it causes so many issues. We have spoken about some of the challenges in South Ribble, and I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and to talk more about them over the weeks ahead. It is important that plans are put in place. Where councils are not performing—where they have not passed the threshold for the number of applications they need to pass or have lost too many on appeal—we will designate and we will be clear that changes are needed.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for agreeing, this time last year, to put stronger protections for land use in food production into the NPPF, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for confirming today that they have survived the consultation period. Will he clarify, first, that the new language in the NPPF is a binary test where land is either used in food production or is not, ending the dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin lawyer’s paradise of arguing about what is best and most versatile, and, secondly, that the character test he spoke of applies to rural character as well as in urban environments?
Lee Rowley
On my hon. Friend’s second point, absolutely. On his first point, I will read the footnote to paragraph 1.81 of the NPPF:
“The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered”.
I hope that is helpful.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for much of today’s announcement. In seats such as mine, it does not really matter what the target is when such a high proportion of the homes that are built are just used as short-term holiday lets. This time a year ago, we agreed to another consultation, which finished this June. I ask again: when might we have the results of that consultation and steps to ensure that, when we build homes in communities such as mine, those homes are affordable for the people who live and work there?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for her question, which gives us only a few seconds to talk about the matter, but for her Adjournment debate a few days ago, when we had a much longer period to talk about it. She makes a very important point; I know how important it is to colleagues in the south-east and elsewhere and, although I am not able to give her a date today, I hope to have more on that very soon.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister says on the importance of neighbourhood plans, on agricultural land and on brownfield development. Can he clarify what the consequences are if a district council has already embarked on a consultation on a local plan but, having studied the NPPF in detail, sees stuff there that it wants to embrace and chooses to adopt elements of the NPPF, which then leads to a consequential delay?
Lee Rowley
There is a long section at the end of the revised NPPF that explains the arrangements for councils that are in the process. We are trying to strike a delicate balance, ensuring that councils go through that process to the extent that they are able to, while recognising that those in an earlier part of the process may want to consider some of the changes. It generally is the case, if I recall correctly, that when councils have passed the regulation 19 stage—the second consultation—there is a greater expectation that they will stay in the process. It is ultimately for them to make their own judgments, but the Government will be watching the result.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I think overall that this is a very good plan and very well delivered by the Minister. I welcome in particular the remarks on character, on beauty, on the importance of agricultural land, on the importance of community support and on the fact that targets are a start point and not an end point. Those are significant changes that mean that communities can be listened to. Will the Minister just confirm that the exceptional circumstance will be available—perhaps even welcome—for examples including islands separated by sea, such as my Isle of Wight constituency?
Lee Rowley
The footnotes to paragraph 61 use as an example
“areas that are islands with no land bridge that have a significant proportion of elderly residents.”
I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that that sounds very much like the Isle of Wight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The prize for patience and perseverance, with the last question of the year, goes to Nigel Mills.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Five years ago, the export of houses from Derby made a local plan in Amber Valley impossible, but there is no reason for delay now. Does the Minister agree that there is no reason for the Labour-run council not to have made more rapid progress with the pretty reasonable plan it inherited in May? Will he also confirm what the consequence will be if the 12-week direction he has issued today does not result in rapid progress, to ensure that residents in Amber Valley get a local plan sometime soon?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who I know speaks up for his constituents. Labour won Amber Valley Borough Council and it now needs to own ensuring that the council delivers on its responsibilities. If Labour has made promises to Amber Valley residents that it cannot fulfil, that is on Labour. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of councils to make sure that they have a plan in place, and to do that at the earliest possible opportunity. Where Labour councils such as Amber Valley are failing to do that and are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, it is right that he calls that out. Amber Valley needs to get on with its plan.
Points of Order
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a well-known matter of parliamentary protocol that when hon. Members carry out visits and duties in another Member’s seat, they notify the Member prior to their visit. Time and time again, other hon. Members have visited my seat on official duties and not notified me. They include, recently, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and repeated unnotified visits by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Perhaps the shadow Transport Secretary’s notification got delayed, just like the woeful bus service the Mayor of South Yorkshire is presiding over, and perhaps the shadow Defence Secretary did not want to announce coming to Brexit-voting Rother Valley on the back of Labour’s new plans for closer military ties with the EU. Madam Deputy Speaker, please can you confirm that MPs on official visits to other Members’ seats should always notify sitting Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. We do not need any further interventions, but I will take a further point of order if the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne would like to make one.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, me and my family actually live in Rotherham and if I notified him every time I was in his constituency, I would simply swamp his inbox.
Alexander Stafford
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] This is not a seesaw—[Interruption.]
Alexander Stafford
Madam Deputy Speaker, my family live in Rother Valley as well and he knows that. To say my family do not live there is disgraceful. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was embarrassed about standing next to councillors who did not report the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Perhaps that is why he is smiling and doing that. That was reported by the Guido website.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We will now calm down. [Interruption.] I do not need the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) at the back to tell other Members to sit down. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley has to sit down, I will tell him to sit down.
Let us just clear up this matter in its various aspects. First of all, it is understandable that the hon. Member for Rother Valley is angry about his family being brought into it. I am quite sure that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, on the Opposition Front Bench, will wish to withdraw that part of his remarks and allow the House to concentrate on the fact that he does enter privately the hon. Gentleman’s constituency frequently. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Rother Valley please be quiet and allow me to answer the question that he raised? Now, will the right hon. Gentleman remove from his remarks the mention of the hon. Gentleman’s family? [Interruption.]
I think we are getting a little confused here, largely because there is noise and when people shout I cannot hear what other people are saying. I think there has been some confusion, so let us just sort it out. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about your family, Mr Stafford. He said something about his own family and where they live. It is up to him—[Interruption.] Will you stop talking while I am answering the question? The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about Mr Stafford’s family. If he had done that, that would be quite wrong and I would be the first to defend Mr Stafford. What we are talking about is a situation where Mr Stafford is quite rightly annoyed that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley have, on several occasions, gone into his constituency not on private business, but on party business or otherwise. Where that occurs, it should not.
For the guidance of Members—although I know that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne does not need it, because he is a long-standing Member of this House and one who normally behaves with absolute honour in all that he does—we have the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”. This little booklet was recently sent, in its newly amended version, to all Members of the House. Quite often, when Mr Speaker and those of us who occupy the Chair have to deal with points of order here in the Chamber, it is because Members have not read it, or they might have read it or looked at the cover but not taken in its contents. I would be most grateful if everybody would look at it. It was sent very recently. This is a new version, published in November 2023. It is one of my few published books! I joke that it is mine, but it is not mine. It was put together by the House, but Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers had very considerable input into it. It would be helpful if Members were to take on board what it says.
The hon. Gentleman, Mr Stafford, has made a perfectly reasonable point of order. It has been responded to by the right hon. Gentleman, Mr Healey. I think we can leave it at that. Thank you.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said in this Chamber that
“taxes for the average worker have gone down by £1,000.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 360.]
On 30 November, she said:
“Taxes for the average worker will have gone down by £1,000 since 2010.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1084.]
In a subsequent letter to me, on 15 December, she effectively admitted that taxes had not actually gone down as she earlier claimed. She now claimed instead that taxes for the average worker are £1,000 lower than they would have been. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has refused to correct the record so far. I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether there is any guidance available to Ministers on the circumstances in which they should seek to make such a correction.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As Mr Speaker has said many times from this Chair and I have repeated, the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House is not a matter for the Chair. The interpretation of statistics is a matter of interpretation and it is very often the case that one Member views a statistic from one angle and another Member views the same statistic from a completely different angle. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very clearly and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful to the House if I draw its attention once again to paragraph 3.13 of the autumn statement document, which outlines exactly how that £1,000 tax cut is calculated.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, which I think proves what I have just said. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady are looking at the same statistics and interpreting them in slightly different ways. That is what politics is about; that is what this Chamber is about. It is about having a discussion from one side to the other. Thank you very much.
Miners’ Strike (Pardons)
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to pardon miners convicted of certain offences committed during the 1984-85 miners’ strike.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about a matter of great importance to me and many others in my Midlothian constituency and beyond. A miners’ pardon would be a powerful symbol of reconciliation. It would show we are prepared to put the past behind us and move on. The miners’ strike of 1984-85 was one of the most bitter and divisive events in British history. It was a time when miners, who were fighting for their jobs and their communities, were met with the full force of the state. Thousands were arrested and many were convicted of offences such as breach of the peace, obstruction of the police and breach of bail conditions. Those convictions were a travesty of justice. The miners were heroes, not criminals; they were fighting for their livelihoods.
The Scottish Parliament has helpfully already passed a law pardoning miners who were convicted in Scotland during the strike. I believe that now is the time for the UK Government to do the same for those miners in England and Wales. Members may ask why I, a Scottish MP, am bringing in this Bill. It is not only because some miners may have moved from my constituency to England and Wales, but because any kind of compensation scheme would require a UK-wide pardon to be in effect. Beyond that, it is a matter of justice. The miners deserve to have their convictions wiped away; they deserve to be remembered as the heroes they were in their communities.
The miners’ strike was a watershed moment in British history, and it had a profound impact on Scotland especially. The strike was a national dispute, but it was particularly hard-fought in Scotland, where the coal industry was a major employer and a significant part of the culture and identity of many communities. I have spoken several times about the merits of a UK-wide inquiry into the miners’ strike of 1984-85. Over that time, I have gathered the views and memories of many of those who were involved at the height of the strikes.
I moved to my now hometown of Loanhead at the height of the strikes in 1985. Criminal records, lost pensions and social stigma are now the real-world consequences of the actions that many took. Many are still living with the aftermath today. A pardon, and indeed a public inquiry, could be a step on the way to get answers and redress for those affected by the many injustices caused by those events. We need to heal the wounds of the past in order to move forward. Do we learn from injustice and listen to the lessons, or would we do it all again given the chance? Those are the questions that need answered for the sake of communities across the country, especially my own in Midlothian.
Mining in Midlothian dates back all the way to the 12th century, when the monks of Newbattle Abbey first began extracting coal. By the 20th century, mining was integral to my community’s way of life. Midlothian was home to a range of pits, from Bilston Glen and Monktonhall to the first Victorian super-pit at the Lady Victoria colliery, which is still home to the National Mining Museum Scotland. I would welcome any hon. Member who wants to visit at any time—they can let me know that they are coming if they want, but they can also come in their own time. It is a great visit.
By the 1980s, mines meant miners’ strikes. A token picket of six was maintained at Monktonhall, but Bilston Glen and Loanhead saw mass picketing and some of the most bitter conflicts of the strike in Scotland. According to Professor Jim Murdoch, miners’ stories
“showed without doubt that the criminal justice system all too often reacted in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner.”
A former miner at Monktonhall colliery, and a former council colleague of mine, Alex Bennett, who sadly passed away in January this year, told the inquiry in Scotland:
“I was snatched by one of the snatch squads. They went for the union officials and they knew our names. The original charges were for rioting but that wasn’t going to stick so they changed it to breach of the peace.”
The tactic was simply to use whatever means necessary to get miners, especially union officials, off the picket line and into the cells. Breach of the peace, obstructing a police officer, breach of bail and theft—all those charges and more were twisted to justify the snatch squad style of policing. These tactics would not look out of place in North Korea or Putin’s Russia. Serious questions remain about the extent of alleged political interference in the policing of the strike. Arrested strikers were sacked and denied redundancy payments and pension rights.
The Scottish Government rightly recognised the scale of the injustice back in 2018 when they commissioned an independent review, led by John Scott KC, of the impact of policing on communities, but the campaign did not start only then. I pay tribute to former MSP Neil Findlay, who was campaigning as far back as 2012 for an inquiry and compensation for the miners who were caught up in this. That baton was picked up by Richard Leonard, who ensured that the Bill passed through the Scottish Parliament with the support of the Scottish Government. I have already mentioned former councillor Alex Bennett from Danderhall, who sadly died in January. My predecessor, David Hamilton, did so much to support the cause. Then there are those who took part in supporting the Scottish Government’s inquiry, including independent review advisory panel members Dennis Canavan, Jim Murdoch and Kate Thomson.
Following testimony from former miners, police officers and mining communities, the review group made one single recommendation: that the Scottish Government should introduce legislation to pardon miners convicted for certain matters related to the strike. The Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022 was welcomed by the National Union of Mineworkers for removing the stigma of a criminal record. I am delighted to say that it was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament in June 2022. It is never too late. By following the lead of the Scottish Government, healing can start today for other parts of these isles.
Numerous clashes between striking miners and police officers resulted in injuries and arrests. The UK Government imposed tight restrictions on picketing, making it difficult for miners to gather and protest, leading to frustration and anger among many communities. The Government brought in non-union workers, which was seen by many miners as a betrayal and led to further violence and unrest. The carnage of that time saw jobs lost forever, and the economic hardship caused by the strike led to social problems such as poverty, unemployment, social deprivation and alcoholism. That has had a hard knock-on effect on other communities, as industries and businesses that relied on coal were also forced to close. Many struggled to make ends meet. In some ways, it all resembled a civil war, creating huge divisions and strife among families and communities.
The strike was seen as a full-scale attack by the Government and police on miners and their communities. It is only right that this place now takes the chance to recognise the solidarity that miners and their communities had, and still have to this day, by bringing forward a pardon. It would be a lasting symbol of recognition of what went wrong during the decline of the coal industry, of the destruction of towns, villages and their way of life by the Government of the day. The strikes are still remembered with a great deal of bitterness in communities like mine. We could do the right thing by righting the wrongs of that time. I encourage all Members to support the Bill. It is never too late to right the wrongs of the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Owen Thompson, Martyn Day, Alan Brown, Marion Fellows, Ben Lake, Patricia Gibson, Douglas Chapman, John Mc Nally, Alison Thewliss, Hannah Bardell and Steven Bonnar present the Bill.
Owen Thompson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 143).
Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 4 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.
Other proceedings
(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.
Miscellaneous
(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(12) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(13) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(15) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Scott Mann.)
Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill
Tuesday 19th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 December 2023 - (19 Dec 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Post Office Horizon scandal, which began over 20 years ago, and the impacts of which are still felt today, is rightly described as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in our history. The House will be aware that during the late 1990s the Post Office began installing Horizon accounting software, but faults in the software led to shortfalls in branches’ accounts. The Post Office demanded that postmasters cover the shortfalls and, in many cases, wrongfully prosecuted them for false accounting or theft. Attempts to protest their innocence fell on deaf ears, and decent, honest and hard-working postmasters who served at the heart of our communities were subject to a range of abject harms.
Take the case of Alan Bates, who is one of a number of heroes in this tale. As many Members will know, Mr Bates is due to be immortalised on our screens on 1 January in the ITV series “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, which will make compelling viewing for many of us. He is an innocent man who, alongside his partner Suzanne, invested £100,000 of life savings to start a new life and run the post office branch in Craig-y-Don, on the north Wales coast. When shortfalls began to emerge, Mr Bates was accused by the Post Office of mismanagement and ordered to repay the difference immediately. He protested his innocence and identified some of the supposed shortfall as the result of an overnight software update. The Post Office continued to pursue payment, meanwhile refusing Mr Bates the IT access necessary to interrogate his own branch accounts. His postmaster’s contract was subsequently terminated, with Mr Bates losing his likelihood, savings and reputation in his community in the process.
Suspecting that other postmasters may have suffered because of Horizon issues, Mr Bates launched his campaign website. Ultimately—15 years later—he gathered enough evidence to successfully take the Post Office to court and expose the scandal.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Like Mr Bates, my constituents Mr and Mrs Simpson ran a village shop and post office that suffered from the faulty software. They have campaigned for compensation through the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, and Mr Simpson himself gave evidence at the public inquiry. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my constituents and their colleagues? Without their determination and courage, we would not be where we are today, delivering this Bill to support those victims.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I particularly thank Mr and Mrs Simpson for their work—of course, a number of people campaigned so strongly on this tragedy. I pay tribute to his constituents and to many others like them who made sure we are here today, delivering justice and, indeed, compensation for those postmasters.
Alan Bates’s case is one individual tragedy, but he is only one among many: over 3,000 people have suffered in some way as a result of this scandal. For some, that meant paying the Post Office money they did not owe. For others, it meant the loss of their livelihood, their home, their mental or physical health, or their family relationships. Too many have died before getting justice; saddest of all, some of those deaths were suicides. Each Horizon victim is a personal tragedy, and it is imperative that each and every one gets the justice and compensation for which they have waited too long.
This Government are committed to delivering justice for all Horizon victims. Part of that justice will come from making sure that everyone knows the truth about what happened, which is why the Government set up the statutory inquiry into the scandal chaired by Sir Wyn Williams. The work of that inquiry to date is commendable—it is doing important work in exposing the truth. From that truth will follow corporate and individual accountability, for which there is a strong appetite in this House and beyond. I sympathise with hon. Members’ desire to see accountability right now, but we must let justice take its course.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On the Minister’s point about corporate responsibility, I had the chief executive of the Post Office come and apologise to one of the people I have represented in this exercise. The point I made to him, which I hope the Minister will also take on board, is that the corporate behaviour of the Post Office has not been above criticism: it has employed very expensive lawyers to make this process much more difficult for the victims than it needs to be. I hope the Government will continue to encourage the Post Office not to do that.
Kevin Hollinrake
Absolutely—we want to make it as easy as possible. I thank my right hon. Friend for his campaigning on this matter, too: he is one of a number of parliamentarians who has done fantastic work to make sure we are here today. I have referred to both corporate and individual responsibility. Corporate accountability is not enough: where we find that individuals are to blame, they should be held to account too.
Any compensation must be fair and just, and we have created a Horizon compensation advisory board to help us make sure that happens. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), both for his campaigning on this matter and his work on the advisory board. He sits on the board alongside Lord Arbuthnot, who is another great campaigner on this matter, and two academics. Its reports, which are published on gov.uk, have been invaluable in helping us ensure that the schemes are working properly and delivering fairness. As part of the Post Office’s process for compensation for overturned convictions, it is —by agreement with claimants’ lawyers—appointing an independent assessor for the process, whose role will be to ensure that fair compensation is paid.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister is right when he says that this is a miscarriage of justice. As I have often said in this place, I was formerly a postmaster, and I can remember when the tills did not balance. Unlike the Post Office, I believed my staff that it was not their fault—that there was an error. Luckily, those errors were not significant, and we just wrote them off. I thank the Minister for all he has done, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has equally done an enormous amount.
The Post Office did not believe those innocent postmasters who were simply doing their job, but equally, Fujitsu supplied the software that did not work properly, yet I never hear about whether that company is culpable. Can the Minister tell me what Fujitsu has ever had to suffer from what has happened to everybody else?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, as well as his direct experience—he is one of the few people in this House who has that experience. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for all the work he did as my predecessor; his comments about Fujitsu, and about making sure that it is not the taxpayer alone who picks up the tab, are clearly on the record. Again, where responsibility can be assigned, there should be accountability, perhaps in the form of compensation paid by those companies. It is right, though, that the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry is allowed to take the time it needs to report and to identify blame where it exists. Those matters can then be dealt with at that time.
Alongside introducing this Bill, my Department published a revised version of the documents for the group litigation order scheme, which make clearer than ever that the scheme exists to pay full, fair and timely compensation. If compensation cannot be agreed with my Department, a decision will be made by a panel of independent experts. Any GLO postmaster who believes that the panel’s award fails that fairness test can ask the scheme’s independent reviewer, Sir Ross Cranston, to look at their case. Between them, those arrangements provide powerful and independent assurance that compensation is fair.
Turning to compensation amounts, to date, around £138 million has been paid out to over 2,700 claimants across the three compensation schemes established by the Post Office and the Government. Those figures are regularly updated on the dedicated gov.uk page. So far, 93 convictions have been overturned. We have seen positive progress since my previous statement to the House on 18 September, which announced that postmasters who have had convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence overturned are entitled to up-front offers of £600,000 as a fixed sum in full and final settlement of their claim. I can confirm that following that announcement, the first 22 claimants have now settled their claims with the Post Office, taking the total to 27 full and final settlements—I hope this will encourage other postmasters to submit claims. I should add that a significant proportion of those claimants followed the fixed sum award route.
The GLO scheme, administered by my Department for the 500 trailblazing postmasters who took the Post Office to court and exposed the Horizon scandal, has already paid out roughly £27 million across 475 claimants. Postmasters who were neither convicted nor members of the GLO can apply to the Post Office-run Horizon shortfall scheme. I am pleased to say that every last one of the 2,417 people who applied before the scheme’s original deadline have now received initial offers of compensation, and some £87 million has been paid out. The Post Office is now dealing with late applications and with those cases where the initial offer was not accepted.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill before us. The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, a small Bill of just two clauses, provides a continuing legal basis for the payments of compensation to victims of this appalling scandal. Principally, it will enable the Government to continue to pay compensation under the GLO scheme that my Department is currently administering. Compensation payments made under the scheme are currently paid under the sole authority of the successive Appropriation Acts, and Parliament requires all such payments to be made within a two-year period. The first payment of interim compensation was made on 8 August 2022, meaning that, with the law as it stands, no GLO payments can be made beyond 7 August 2024. This Bill removes that deadline.
This certainly does not mean we are taking our foot off the gas. We will still want to be able to pay compensation as quickly as possible. My Department is now committed to making an initial offer of compensation in 90% of cases within 40 working days of receiving a fully completed GLO claim, and many claims will be dealt with much more quickly. However, as Sir Wyn Williams has noted, the resolution of compensation claims requires actions by postmasters, their advisers and third parties, as well as by the Government.
In his interim report, which he provided to Parliament in July, Sir Wyn expressed concern that the August deadline could leave some postmasters timed out of compensation or rushed into making decisions. The Government agree that this must not happen, and the Bill ensures that it will not happen. All GLO postmasters will get full and fair compensation, and they will get it promptly without being unduly rushed.
In conclusion, until everyone has fair compensation, the truth is known and the guilty are held accountable, Members of this House and others will rightly continue to raise issues about this scandal. In the meantime, the House should know that this Government are on the side of the postmasters, and we will continue to give these issues our full attention and do our best to resolve them. This Bill is a further example of that, and I commend it to the House.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I want to begin by paying tribute to Members across the House who have worked tirelessly on this campaign, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his work in campaigning on this issue and Lord Arbuthnot for his many years of work in tackling this injustice. Of course, as the Minister has said, we all pay particular tribute to Alan Bates for his pioneering work in this campaign and for working tirelessly to seek justice. Without his bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today.
The Horizon scandal, as we have heard from the Minister, is a truly shocking miscarriage of justice and one of the most devastating in British history. The scandal has brought devastation to the lives of over 700 falsely convicted sub-postmasters, and 20 years on, they and their families are still suffering from the consequences and the trauma of all they have been put through. I want to pay tribute to their determination for pursuing justice. The wrongly accused sub-postmasters have had to endure unjust prison terms, family breakdowns, homelessness, bankruptcy, health consequences, being ostracised from their own communities and worse, to say nothing of the mental health toll and the stress they have all carried while knowing that they have been wrongly convicted. I do not think any of us can truly understand the scale of what they have suffered.
As of 10 August 2023, the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the court cases have heard that at least 60 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice or receiving compensation, and at least four have tragically taken their own lives. Most recently, Tom Brown, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, sadly, passed away. He was the sub-postmaster of several branches spanning 30 years, and he died without receiving his full and final compensation. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with his family and friends at this time, as well as with the many others who have lost loved ones affected by this horrific injustice.
Many have suffered and continue to suffer because of this scandal. Tracy Felstead was a post office worker who was jailed when she was just 19. Rubbina Shaheen suffered a prison sentence as a result, and had to sell her house and live in a van. Seema Misra was pregnant with her second child when she was convicted of theft and sent to jail in 2010. She said:
“It was the worst thing. It was so shameful.”
As a result, she experienced regular suicidal thoughts at the time. Those are just a few of the examples in a tragically long list.
This is a scandal that has destroyed victims’ lives and taken everything from them, but this case is beyond just being a scandal; it is an insidious injustice that has been devastating and has in some cases claimed people’s lives. The suffering of the sub-postmasters can never come close to being repaid, but the very least the Government can do is ensure that they receive their fair compensation as soon as possible. Many of those who, sadly, have passed away never lived to see their innocence proven or to see the compensation that they deserved paid. With further delays to the compensation, the Government run the risk of more sub-postmasters not receiving the compensation they deserve as soon as possible, so it is vital that Ministers act with urgency and speed.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I pay tribute to the campaigners, particularly Mr Bates and, indeed, hon. Members from across the House. The point she makes about the Government, the Post Office and, indeed, Fujitsu learning lessons from this appalling scandal is absolutely right, and I do hope that the Minister, when he speaks later, will be able to address those points. Does she agree with me that it is very important that the Government learn the lessons and help the Post Office learn the lessons of such awful incidents?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I know that the Minister will be keen to make sure that these mistakes are never repeated and that the lessons are learned.
It is vital that we act with urgency and speed, and I look forward to the full publication of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, so that we can ensure that those responsible are finally held to account. It cannot be right that they have not been held to account as yet, when so much time has passed. I want to thank Sir Wyn Williams and the inquiry team for their ongoing work.
The Labour party will work with the Government to do what we can to ensure that justice is delivered, and as such we support the Bill. The Government must now confirm how they will use the extra time that this Bill grants to deliver justice as quickly as possible. I welcome some of the detail that the Minister has provided in writing as well as what he has said today, and I hope that he ensures that the necessary action is taken to ensure delivery and that the compensation is provided as quickly as possible. Once again, I pay tribute to all those who have worked tirelessly to secure justice, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ease my way back on to the Back Benches and speak about this issue and a number of others. After nearly four years of dealing with covid and its effect on the hospitality sector, the Online Safety Bill and gambling harms, nothing has kept me awake at night more than the plight of the sub-postmasters who fell within the Horizon scandal and the biggest miscarriage of justice in British court history.
I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for all his work in trying to rectify the situation. It is horrendously complex, with many strands of compensation and a lot of different competing needs and demands. It is lovely to see on the officials’ bench some familiar faces of those who have worked tirelessly over many years, including preceding my time as Minister.
This provision is not just to extend the time available and ensure that we are ahead of the process for August next year, but is important in itself to keep this issue in the public eye. Mention has been made of “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, which I am looking forward to seeing in the new year. With all the competing interests of what is happening in the middle east, in Ukraine, and in people’s personal lives here in the UK, it is important that we remind ourselves of what can happen if one corporation oversteps its reach. We must always remind ourselves of that, and we must drive our way through to solving this issue, getting the answers that the postmasters need and, importantly, restoring their financial situation as best we can to where they were before the detriment occurred.
I remember how we pulled levers when I was a Minister and used the fact that the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, stood at the Dispatch Box and said, in answer to a question, that he would happily look at a public inquiry. That gave me carte blanche to lean in and ensure that we used that authority, and with the backing of officials and my Department, we started what was originally a non-statutory inquiry that then became statutory. It had to become statutory after we heard from the judge in the Court of Appeal. At the time I genuinely wanted it to be non-statutory, not because I wanted to resile from anything that was happening, but purely and simply for speed and ease. It was so that we could concentrate on getting the postmasters compensation and the answers they wanted, rather than having a layer of lawyers—frankly we are seeing that at the covid inquiry at the moment—looking at other things outside the narrow term of reference. We clearly had to have a statutory inquiry once the judge at the Court of Appeal outlined his thoughts.
Despite the complexity, when I first spoke to Sir Wyn when appointing him at the beginning, we were hoping that the inquiry would be wrapped up by now, and it is frustrating that by necessity he is still going through the deliberation, taking evidence and working through a hugely complex situation. It is disappointing but understandable that compensation is taking so long to get out, for reasons that the Minister has already described regarding how we work through such complexities.
The shadow Minister talked about how the Minister might use the extra time beyond August. I hope we do not need that extra time and that it is there to get ahead of the process, rather than saying that we will extend the process because we have carte blanche permission to go beyond 24 August and kick it into the long grass. As we have heard, people cannot wait. People are dying, people are taking their own life, people have been forced out of their villages. Indeed, the constituent of one hon. Member was forced out of the country for fear of the shame of something they had not done in the first place.
With hindsight, if I were back at the start of the process I would like to run the compensation all in one go from the Department. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is nodding his head, because he asked about that at the time. I very much take on board the work he has done not just as a campaigner but on the advisory committee. I put a lot of weight both on his words in the Chamber and on those he said to me informally outside it, when we could talk in more depth about what was happening with his constituent and the other people we were speaking about. If we had run the compensation as one process within the Department, it could have helped to narrow the focus of what needed to be done. I am not asking the Minister to go down that line, but whatever happens in the months to come, I hope he will always look at providing flexibility and at what more we can do to keep the pressure on. There is a phrase in the civil service and in government about doing things “at pace”. It is a phrase I never really hear outside government—I always heard it in government—and the problem is who defines what pace something is. What we mean is quickly, or “more haste less speed”, as my old teacher used to say.
As I have said, this is the best thing I will ever do in politics, and the officials in the Department, many of whom are here today, have repeated that. It has become very liberating, because I think we are all on the same page. We all want to get this done now, not only so that we can get people compensation, but so that we can get answers and justice, and put on the hook those who should be on the hook, rather than the taxpayer.
It is also important to do that for the future of the Post Office. I see the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the chair of the all-party group on post offices, in her place. If this was any other type of corporation or company, the chances are that it would have gone to the wall and gone bust by now as the reputational damage would have been too big. The Post Office is too important for the fabric of our society to allow it to go by the wayside. To address its the future, we have to tackle the past as well. Making sure that those two strands are running together is so important.
I will leave it at that. I do not want to keep the House too long, but I remember Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner, Seema Misra, Christopher Head, Lee Castleton and other people, some of whom still keep me in touch with what is happening, usually on Twitter, or X.
I wish everyone in this House a merry Christmas. I hope that we all have a good rest and a happy new year, but I want those postmasters affected to have as good a Christmas and new year as they can. I want to make sure that Christmas 2024 is an even better Christmas and new year for them, because by then, I hope we will have sorted the compensation as best we can and brought this to a close, so that they can move on, and so can the Post Office.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). In no way do I want the speech I am about to give to seem mean-spirited, but things have to be said, so I will say them, and I hope in a justifiable way. While the Bill is welcome, to ensure that no Horizon victims who were part of the group litigation order miss out on compensation, we must ensure that despite the extension, all efforts are made to compensate victims fairly as soon as possible. I thank the Minister for his remarks on that in his opening speech.
It is hard to see why such a Bill, which does nothing more than empower the Secretary of State to pay compensation, has taken so long to get here. Concerns were first published in the media in 2009. In 2015, the Post Office scrapped its independent investigation into the system by Second Sight the day before the report was due to be published. Post Office Ltd conceded a court case admitting Horizon faults more than four years ago, on the day of the last general election—a move that seems to have been timed to avoid scrutiny.
Calls for compensation have been clear and long. This Bill could have been passed in the first months of this Parliament, but it was not. It is now coming to the fag end of this Parliament, and we need to move on. I know that everyone is committed to that, but facts are facts. We still have no idea, three and a half years after settling, why the situation was allowed to go on for so long.
Many victims, as we are all well aware, have sadly passed away, and some by their own hand. They never saw proper justice and proper compensation for the years of trauma they endured at the hands of Post Office Ltd. Their families still suffer. The ongoing inquiry has been blighted by further delay and disclosure issues by Post Office Ltd. Each inquiry delay disgracefully delays justice and the payment of compensation. There must be no further setbacks obstructing the delivery of justice. The inquiry has uncovered further scandal upon scandal, and the pervasive culture throughout Post Office Ltd between 1999 and today has been one of dishonesty, incompetence and deceit, raising further questions over all Post Office convictions in this period, not just those linked to Horizon.
The actions of Post Office Ltd employees at various levels and in various departments, including those responsible for auditing and investigations and in the legal departments, have been brought to light in the most recent stage of the inquiry. At every level, there was clear culpability. The boastful manner in which some of those responsible celebrated the convictions of innocent sub-postmasters, while knowing of Horizon bugs, adds insult to injury for victims.
The Bill is too narrow in its scope, and in the interests of justice, it should be broadened to ensure that everyone who has been investigated and convicted by Post Office Ltd has their case investigated to ensure that no other miscarriages of justice have happened. There are still questions to be answered about the Post Office’s co-operation with the inquiry and its relationship with Fujitsu, past and present. In April 2023, Post Office Ltd renewed the contract with Fujitsu, which created and provided the Horizon software, for another year. So far, Fujitsu has avoided any financial penalties as a result of the faulty software, with the burden falling on the Government and Post Office, but in January 2022 Members of the other place said that Fujitsu should dig into its pockets for doing nothing while the scandal unfolded in front of its eyes. The inquiry is investigating how much Fujitsu was aware of the problems with its software, the risk of false reporting and what could have been done to prevent the tragedy.
Gareth Jenkins, the former chief architect at Fujitsu, was due to give evidence at the statutory public inquiry on 6 and 7 July this year. So far, he has not been able to do so. Some 4,767 documents, including some that are significant to Jenkins’s evidence, were only received from Post Office at 10.32 pm on 5 July, allowing no time for lawyers to analyse them. He was scheduled to give evidence after the summer break, and he subsequently asked for a guarantee that his testimony could not be given as evidence against him, which was denied. We are still waiting to hear from him. I therefore support amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which would ensure that we know the whole truth about the alleged errors carried out by Post Office Ltd, beyond Horizon. All potential victims of the practices of Post Office Ltd must get the justice they deserve.
Beyond that, real questions need to be asked of successive UK Governments—whether Labour or Tory—who allowed the scandal to fester under their watch. As the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd, successive UK Governments have utterly failed in their oversight of the company, allowing the most widespread miscarriage of justice to continue for two decades.
Even in more recent times, the current UK Government have allowed repeated scandals to occur, with bonusgate being one of the many despicable recent episodes that have brought yet more shame to a once trusted national institution. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade described the debacle as
“news to us as Ministers.”
However, documents obtained through a freedom of information request by campaigner Eleanor Shaikh show that Ministers and officials endorsed the Post Office inquiry metric as part of their approval of its chief executive officer and chief financial officer in the transformation scheme. A letter requesting approval was sent to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s permanent secretary and accounting officer in July 2021, outlining details comprehensively. The document was then sent to the Secretary of State for Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Ministers gave their endorsement five months after the inquiry became statutory. Likewise, the UK Government Investments representative on the board was well aware of the inquiry’s sub-metric.
It is absolutely clear that Post Office Ltd’s current system of governance needs to be addressed immediately to ensure a greater level of oversight and transparency in decision making by the Government and the UKGI representative on the Post Office Ltd board. There are questions to be answered about Post Office’s co-operation with the inquiry and its past and present relationship with Fujitsu. The management of Post Office Ltd has been exposed, and questions remain over its continued stewardship of our post office network. Indeed, I became interested in post offices because of the decline in the network, knowing nothing of Horizon at the time.
Earlier this year, London Economics produced a report showing that the social value delivered by Post Office is 16 and a half times greater than the financial input it receives from the Government. Closures have picked away at the post office network, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned. The Department for Business and Trade must do more to protect communities.
I extend my sympathies to the victims of this scandal, who still endure the trauma inflicted by Post Office Ltd. The Minister is right: we are all here today to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve. However, some of the figures are sobering. I understand that some of the problems may be due to the difficulty of making a claim in the first place, and I thank Dan Neidle for his exposure of that.
I pay tribute to all the campaigners. I will also make a special apology—to Alan Bates—because at one point, when I did not realise the significance of what had happened, I said that I did not believe in witch hunts. I still do not believe in them, but evidence is building against those who have made serious mistakes and errors, and who, in some cases, have hidden facts.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about corporate and individual responsibility, which is really important. I thank him for saying that compensation claims will still be pursued vigorously. This is really a technical Bill to allow payments to carry on, and they must do so as speedily and efficiently as possible. Nothing can make up for the trauma that so many people have gone through, but we need to compensate those who have suffered, and we need to compensate them properly, well and timeously.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. I rise to welcome the Bill and the reasoning behind it, as outlined by the Minister. I must say that the Minister is committed to ensuring that we make the scheme as fair and equitable as possible. As he said, it would have been unjust to have left the sword of Damocles that was the arbitrary deadline of next August hanging over the heads of potential claimants. It is right that the Bill is brought forward. I echo the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) that we do not want to see delays in compensation, but, because of the trauma that individuals are involved in and the complexity, some cases may take longer than others.
May I, at this point, put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam? Having dealt with the issue for more years than I care to remember—and, I must say, having dealt with a succession of useless Ministers who literally accepted what their civil servants said and continued to parrot that, even when they knew that the Horizon system was at fault—it is a credit to him that he was the only one who grasped the situation and got to understand its complexities. I also welcomed the private chats we had on some of the issues. He is right that the scheme is not easy to implement, but he was willing to question things that were clearly wrong and to put it through. I would not want to make the Minister blush, but if people want an example of a Minister doing his job and having something to look back on and be proud of, they should look at his response to this matter. I do not want to downgrade the present Minister, who has picked up the baton and, as the poacher turned gamekeeper that he is, is following through to ensure that the scheme and justice are delivered for those individuals affected by Horizon.
As has been mentioned, I first got involved because of a constituent called Tom Brown, who came to my surgery. I say to any new Members in the House that if they ever get a case in a constituency surgery and think, “This sounds complex, but it just seems wrong,” they should dig into it and stick with it. Tom was a sub-postmaster in North Kenton in Newcastle. He had worked at other post offices before that, but he and his wife had bought a sub-post office in North Kenton for £150,000, which he saw as an investment not only for him but for his family’s future. He ran it with his wife; they had a convenience store, and it was successful until the Horizon computer system came along. Like many victims, he was given initial training on the system, but it came out in the inquiry that it was completely inadequate.
Not long after Horizon was installed, Tom started having shortfalls. If they were small, many people just made them up, but in his case they got to £85,609.03. He could not reconcile it, despite going to the helpline and saying, “Look, something’s wrong here.” The helpline just ignored him. In November 2008, two Post Office employees came along to do a branch audit, which is when the nightmare for Tom and his family began. He was accused of stealing the £85,000. Despite his efforts to explain the shortfalls in the system, no one listened, nor did they listen in the many other victims’ cases.
Tom had invested in property: he had his business, investment properties and his own house. He had the indignity not only of his name being in the local newspapers as someone who had stolen £85,000 but of having his home searched by the Post Office, looking—strangely enough—for the £85,000, as though he had it stuffed under the bed. The indignity of that is remarkable. We must remember that these individuals were pillars of the local community; people looked up to them and respected them in their communities—and that was suddenly all torn away.
In his witness statement to the inquiry, Tom describes the sensational media wildfire, which was disturbing for him and for his family. He is open in his statement that he considered suicide—sadly, we have heard that at least four people have taken their own lives. He did not because of his strong family. The irony of his situation is that when the Post Office prosecuted him, the case went to Crown court only to be withdrawn on the day it was heard. He was found not guilty of false accounting because no evidence was put forward. The judge said in his summing up:
“I’m sure you’ll be taking this further, Mr Brown”.
By that stage, Tom was left bankrupt. He was accused of stealing £85,000, his name sullied. That led to hardship not just for him but for his family. He had to sell his properties and his business, after it floundered. His son had to take him in and also got into financial difficulty, borrowing money to support his father, and they ended up in social housing in my constituency. The family were completely broken. I want to stress this aspect: we talk about the individual victim, but the effect on their families must be highlighted and compensated. Some family members need counselling because of the effects on them, and Tom’s witness statement to the inquiry sums that up well.
Sadly, Tom did not live to see the compensation he deserved, nor to see his name cleared and those involved in his case brought to justice; he passed away a few weeks ago. I add my condolences to his family. His name is still there with Alan Bates, who has been mentioned, and the others who fought this case.
Would we have got to where we are today without those people? No, we would not, because even when the Post Office knew that the system was flawed, it spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending the indefensible in court as a result of the litigation brought by Alan Bates and the rest of the 555. The tactic of the Post Office was very clear: it was to use public money—our money—to outspend the postmasters who had taken it to court. That was outrageous, given that it subsequently came to light, during the inquiry and also in court, that the Post Office knew that it did not have a leg to stand on. It was forced to settle out of court because it had run out of money, which was the intention of the Post Office and the Department that was in charge at the time.
Do we need to get this system moving? Yes, we do. Having been on the advisory board, I understand the complexities of the scheme. Would we start where we are starting now if we were starting afresh? No, we would not—but 60 people have already died, including Tom, and it is imperative now for us to try to get this compensation paid to their families and to the other postmasters. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said that we would not have started here. We now have the group litigation scheme, the historical shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. Is it too late to try to pull those three into one? I personally think it is, and I do not know what the Minister’s civil servants would do if we suggested it. In any event, I do not think that it is the way forward.
One thing that I do welcome is the appointment of Sir Ross Cranston as the final arbitrator in the process. If people are not happy about the levels of compensation they receive, there will be that final independent arbitrator. There has always been this point about independence. Do any of those involved trust the Post Office? No, they do not. Do I trust the Post Office? No, I still do not trust it, given the way in which it has handled this matter.
Paul Scully
The right hon. Gentleman is making a great speech, and he has got to the crux of the situation, by talking about trust. The postmasters have had plenty of words—20 years of seemingly reassuring words—that they cannot trust, and it is incumbent on all of us to act.
Mr Jones
I entirely agree, and I think that that is how the hon. Gentleman helped—in trying to cut through the words. But whatever I say, he says or anyone says, are these people ever going to trust the Post Office? In his statement to the inquiry, Tom said:
“I think the Post Office are the most corrupt organisation around.”
I have to say that I do not disagree. This was not about people making mistakes; in public administration, people do make mistakes. This was clearly a cover-up conspiracy and, I think, downright criminality on the part of certain individuals. I will return shortly to how we are to get justice in respect of those individuals, but the Bill is about compensation, and I think it important that we take this step forward.
I want to pay tribute to some of those who have kept the fire burning over the years, including Lord Arbuthnot —James Arbuthnot, who has been a tireless campaigner on this issue since he was in the House of Commons—Nick Wallis, and Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly. They have done great work in pushing the issue forward, and they need to be thanked for it.
I also want to raise an important point in respect of the schemes we have now. I did not think that new developments could come about, but they have. This is relevant to amendment 1, which I tabled but which was unfortunately not selected for technical reasons. Lo and behold, a few months ago I learned that there had been another scheme, which could almost be described as a son or daughter of Horizon but which preceded it. It was trialled in the north-east of England. The only reason I knew about it was that I was contacted by the son of a lady somewhere in the north-east—she does not want any publicity—who wanted me to come and see her. When I went to see her, I thought, “This sounds like a Horizon case but it can’t be because the dates are wrong.” Lo and behold, we now learn that 300 trials were done, mainly in the north-east, before Horizon. That lady will not get compensation. She was prosecuted and I understand that another case has now been found. This also came out at the inquiry. When all the publicity came out about Horizon, why did no one come forward and say, “By the way, do you realise we had another system on the go at the beginning and we prosecuted people under that system?”
I know the Minister is on to this, and I am certain that the advisory board is as well. There are potentially other people who were prosecuted because of another failed system that was not Horizon. That needs addressing as matter of urgency because there are people out there who are clearly innocent. I think the lady I have just mentioned could be described as having post-traumatic stress disorder. She was completely mentally scarred by the episode. If we can get justice for that individual and others, we should certainly do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for making that salient point. I am aware that there are many affected postmasters and families in Northern Ireland, including some in my constituency. What they are seeking is a timescale for when all postmasters in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, across this great United Kingdom—can expect to receive their compensation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask for that now. Those in my constituency have not received any word about compensation yet. Does he agree that when the Minister sums up the debate, we want to be given the timescale for the compensation? We want to know that right away.
Mr Jones
Yes. We now have this Bill and we have got the compensation scheme moving, and I think we need to move very quickly to get the money paid out.
Another issue relates to overturned convictions. Nearly 900 people have been convicted, 700-odd through the Post Office. Some of them in Northern Ireland and Scotland were convicted under a different system. Some were prosecuted by the DWP, for example. I will not rehearse the arguments now, but only 93 of those convictions have been overturned and that does not sit right with me. Somebody asked me why people had not come forward, but they are never going to come forward. They have been so scarred and traumatised by the court process that they will never go anywhere near a court process again. We need to tackle that, and I will cover that when I speak to my amendment later.
I welcome this Bill. My final point is on responsibility. If this scandal had happened in the United States, which takes a very different approach to financial crime and misdemeanours, people would be in jail by now. The evidence is all there, and I accept that Sir Wyn is slowly prising it out of the Post Office, but there are individuals such as Paula Vennells, who, ironically, got a CBE in 2019 for services to the Post Office, even though she oversaw all that was going on. I have written on numerous occasions to the Honours Forfeiture Committee to get that taken off her, but I have had no answer.
If there is one broad lesson to be learned from this scandal by Ministers and future Ministers, it is that when the state does something like this that is so wrong, there should be no hiding place for anyone who has been responsible. Sir Wyn is doing a great job in his inquiry to unearth some of these things. Fujitsu has been mentioned. That is an organisation that definitely has some huge questions to answer.
I think there are two parts to this. First, we have to get the compensation paid. The Minister has committed to trying to put people in the position they would have been in if they had not been affected, which is what we need to do. Will the compensation ever fully compensate them for what they have been through? No, it will not—they will have a scar—but it will help. The other important thing is that the people responsible should be brought to justice and have their day in court. Clearly, they need to answer for it.
I finish with the final line of Tom Brown’s evidence to the public inquiry, at paragraph 89:
“I would…like to find out who was responsible once and for all and to see someone take accountability for the wrong doings of the Post Office.”
I could not have put it better myself.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on the way they have progressed this issue, which has caused so much devastation for businesses, families and individuals right across the United Kingdom. People who thought they had a good business, worked at it, invested in it and trusted the Post Office to do right by them, found that they were betrayed by those who knew that mistakes were being made and knew that the system was faulty, yet, rather than admit to the failings, decided to pursue innocent individuals.
I do not want to elaborate on the stories we have heard today, but this Government body and its officials wilfully pursued cases that they knew would destroy individuals, families and reputations. As has been said, postmasters and postmistresses are often regarded as pillars of society in their village or locality, and they suddenly found themselves painted as if they were thieves.
It was known from an early stage, it would seem, that the accusations were totally false. One postmaster said to me, “Surely somebody in the Post Office must have known at an early stage that it was not one or two individuals but hundreds of people who had served blamelessly for many years. Did they think a virus had come into the system and turned them all into criminals? Somebody must have asked questions.” It seems that someone did ask questions and that, as the inquiry has shown, it was known at an early stage that there were flaws in the system and the system was wrong. Even when it was found that these people were right, tens of millions of pounds were spent on pursuing them through the courts, as that was an easy way to shut them up, rather than admitting that mistakes had been made.
I welcome the three things the Minister has said today, although he will have to come back on a regular basis to reassure us. The Bill extends the period in which payments can be made, but we cannot keep delaying compensation for the many who have been left destitute, had their reputation ruined and lost their business. Although the Minister has indicated that, technically, all the Bill will do is allow the compensation period to be extended in case that is needed, I hope that provision will not be used—I accept his assurance that he does not intend for it to be—to drag out the compensation scheme, and that it is only for cases with complexities that will take time to work out. I hope he will come back regularly between now and August to update us on the number of cases that have been dealt with, settled and sorted out.
I welcome the point the Minister made about corporate and individual responsibility. We need to have that, because it was clear that individuals in the organisation knew that what was being done to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses was wrong and yet the corporate response was, “Let’s not admit anything.” As a result, some people were dragged through the courts and finished up with prison sentences. It does not really matter what level of compensation we give, because how can we compensate for broken marriages, ruined reputations, wrongful imprisonment, premature deaths and even driving people to suicide? No level of monetary compensation will ever deal with that, which is why it is important that those responsible are held to account, that there is no hiding place for them and that we do not see the affront we have had so far of the head of the Post Office at the time actually being rewarded. Indeed, not so long ago a Member drew to the House’s attention the fact that the Post Office bonus scheme meant that individuals in the Post Office were actually being given bonuses for giving information to the inquiry that they ought to have been giving in any case. What the Minister said on that is important.
I noted the Minister’s comment that taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of the money that has to be paid out. Fujitsu knew that its system was flawed and it has not been held to account. The Minister said that,
“where responsibility can be assigned”,
the Government would seek to have compensation drawn from Fujitsu. The evidence given to the inquiry already shows that a large degree of responsibility can be assigned to Fujitsu. If that is the case, I trust that the Government will be rigorous in pursing that company. It seems odd that a company that supplied such a system should have had its contract renewed not so long ago. We need greater scrutiny of that and we certainly need to see not only individuals held responsible, but the company that supplied the faulty software held responsible for making some of the financial compensation to these individuals.
It is good that we have the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, here today. They are to be congratulated on the rigorous way in which they have pursued this matter. It gives hope that at least this issue is not going to be ignored, but it is important that we have regular updates so that the public can have assurance that Parliament and the Government are not ignoring it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Gerald Jones to make the last Back-Bench contribution.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to make a brief contribution. As we know, the Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious injustices our country has ever seen. The Post Office was one of Britain’s most well-known and trusted brands, but the sheer scale of false prosecutions and the aggressive way in which they were pursued has destroyed its reputation. But more than that, it destroyed the reputations, lives and livelihoods of former sub-postmasters who had been upstanding members of their local communities. Post Office managers decided to aggressively pursue prosecutions against sub-postmasters even when they knew that the Horizon system had deep-rooted faults. The Post Office compounded that by telling individual sub-postmasters that they were the only ones experiencing problems. That was clearly not the case. Quite simply, those cold, calculated decisions ruined lives, including those of some of my constituents in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I have learned from them, over a number of years, about the impact on their lives, livelihoods, mental health and wellbeing. The fact that the Post Office was able to mount prosecutions in such a cavalier way is simply shocking.
Today, we are talking about compensation for former sub-postmasters. Members from across the House are clear that the compensation is for wrongful and malicious prosecution, and that getting compensation to all victims as quickly as possible is vital if we are to right the wrongs of that injustice. As the shadow Minister said, Labour will work with the Government to do whatever is required to deliver justice, and I will support the Bill.
However, the Government originally committed to resolving all compensation cases by Christmas. It appears that that has not happened, so will the Minister explain why that target was missed and how the extra time provided in the Bill will help to deliver justice to everyone as quickly as possible? As we all know, it simply cannot come soon enough.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is timely to be having the debate on the day we rise for Christmas, as we know that there will be many decent people affected who, 20 years on, are spending yet another Christmas without proper compensation. It has been a short but sobering debate on the victims of the Horizon scandal and how the Government intend to ensure justice is delivered. I am pleased to sit opposite the Minister again and to hear his commitment to a full and fair process, and I am pleased that the Bill is going through this place. However, the need to extend Government powers to deliver the compensation scheme is, of course, disappointing news to those affected.
I will not keep the House long to summarise our support for the Bill, to thank all those who have campaigned for so long and to ask the Minister to respond to some important points that have been raised. As Members have set out, the Bill extends the powers for the Government to deliver one of the compensation schemes for some of the victims of the Horizon scandal beyond August 2024. I join others in thanking those who have got us to this point. I pay tribute to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, which has campaigned for decades for compensation and justice. We could not have a debate in this place on this topic without thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has been tireless in his work. I thank Lord Arbuthnot for his work in this area, and many others.
The Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious injustices our country has ever seen. Getting compensation to all victims as quickly as possible is vital if we are to right this injustice. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), made clear at the start of the debate, Labour will work with the Government to do whatever is required to deliver justice.
There were some good speeches. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) worked hard as a Minister and is right to be proud of what he did in this area. It is good to see that he has eased himself back into the Back Benches. I noted his praise, which is increasingly rare, for Boris Johnson for starting the process for the inquiry. I am sure the Minister noted his lesson that if we were doing this from scratch, the Business Department would perhaps have run all the compensation schemes in the first place. The hon. Gentleman is right that we talk about doing things “at pace” in this place all the time, but we just mean quickly. We need to keep up the speed, which has been sadly lacking, given that we are 20 years on from the original scandal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham gave a full, comprehensive and compelling speech. His quotes from his constituent Tom Brown were very moving, given that his constituent did not survive to receive his compensation. My right hon. Friend spelled out the indignity of his experience, describing how he was the pillar of his community, and how awful the situation had been for him and his family. I noted my right hon. Friend’s suggestion about the need for counselling for some people, because this has been extraordinarily impactful—way beyond financial terms.
My right hon. Friend also talked about the lessons that the Government need to learn. I noted his advice for Ministers and future Ministers. Without jumping to any conclusions, Mr Deputy Speaker, I took that advice, as did the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. He talked compellingly about the clear evidence that the Post Office knew what the problems were, yet still spent all that money defending the indefensible. He was right to make that point so powerfully.
Questions about Fujitsu and others were well made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) made a good final speech, in which he called on the Minister to explain why the target has been missed and what more can be done.
This may be a relatively straightforward, simple piece of legislation, but it does relate, as all Members have said, to one of the UK’s most widespread miscarriages of justice. We have heard tales of people who have been affected. So many of them spent their 60th birthday in prison as a result of errors. Other people lost their entire life savings repaying shortfalls. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister talked about Seema Misra, who was pregnant with her second child when she was convicted. She had an absolutely awful time. Local press reports at the time described her as “a pregnant thief”, which is horrific. We need to keep those stories at the heart of everything we do while we try to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the passage of this Bill, but we do have some questions that we would like the Minister to address, many of which have been set out today. The key one is what the Government will do in this extra time to ensure that compensation is delivered as quickly as possible. The Minister said that the Government are setting a target of 90% being completed within 40 working days. He used the expression, “promptly without being rushed”. Will he elaborate a bit on what that means in terms of the resource and the capacity that will hopefully increase the number of cases moving through the system to get to a happy conclusion?
Alan Bates, who has been widely praised in this debate and who leads the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, is reported as saying:
“It’s all well and good extending the deadline, but the Government has to try to meet the current deadline. The lives of the victims who have lived with this for a long time are not being extended.”
That is a good and sobering point. It would be helpful if the Minister said more about how he is going to speed up that work.
The Minister also made broader remarks. Can he clarify from his earlier remarks how many people have reached a settlement using the £600,000 offer that he announced? He said something about a proportion, but it would be helpful if he could give us a number. Does he have any estimate of the proportion of victims that he considers to be fully compensated? Does he have a timescale for the completion of compensation for those he considers not to be fully compensated? When does he hope to have all this done by?
The Minister has been asked how he will ensure that mistakes like this are not made again. Obviously, we have the inquiry, which is carrying on at its own pace. I do not know whether he has done any work on learning those lessons, so that we do not make mistakes like this again.
As we close the debate, I wish to end by again putting on the record our thoughts for all the victims who have not had their cases solved and who face another Christmas without justice.
Kevin Hollinrake
With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to conclude this debate. We have heard insightful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House, many of whom have championed this cause and campaigned for justice on behalf of postmasters for many years. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), the hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and others, who have demonstrated the best of cross-party campaigning in the interests of those affected by this scandal.
I have addressed the House many times on the subject of the Post Office Horizon scandal, both as a Back Bencher and now as the responsible Minister, and I want to respond to the specific points raised in the debate. The shadow Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), rightly talked about further delays. I want to stress that this is not about further delays, but about preventing an arbitrary date being set, so that people whose claim has not been submitted or is not at the stage where it has been completed or settled can still get compensation.
I say to the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), as I said in my earlier remarks, that the commitment is that we will get 90% of offers out in 40 working days. We are doing a number of things to expedite settlements and accepted claims, not least the fixed-sum award for overturned convictions. She asked about the number of people who have taken that route. For confidentiality reasons, we do not think it is right to state the actual number, but it is a significant proportion, so certainly it is a route that many people think is the right one for them to take. Obviously that is a matter for the individual, and claimants can pursue the standard full assessment process if they feel that is their best option.
Not everything is within our gift, and that is one of the frustrations that we have, because these claims can be complex and require legal input from the claimant’s side. It can take time for the claims to be compiled before they are submitted. That is one of the reasons why we think it is right to delay the long-stop date of 7 August next year.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central asked about the resources and about how we will expedite the settlements. She may be aware that we have recently committed to additional resources for the Post Office. Part of that is to increase the resources committed towards the inquiry, but another part is committed to compensation. We think all the resources are there to get this money paid out within the timeframes we have set out.
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for all of the work he did on this scheme. It is perhaps a little bit ironic that I used to push him from the Back Benches and now he is pushing me from the Back Benches on a similar issue. He is a very sad loss to the Front Benches in this House; he did a fantastic job and he speaks with great authority on this subject. As he says, the best work he did in the Department he attributes to this particular area, so I thank him for all he has done.
My hon. Friend asks whether we need to extend this the long-stop date and why. It is very much a long-stop position. We want to get the payments out before 7 August but, as Sir Wyn Williams advised, this is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend also asked whether, if we were to start again, which I do not think is the right thing to do, we would do things in this way, with three different compensation schemes. I think Sir Wyn Williams said something very similar: we would not do it like that, but all together in one single scheme. However, we are not there and it is right to push ahead now with the work we are doing in this form.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not in his place, said that we need to go faster, not slower. We are not going slower; we are going faster, and that is what we are keen to do. The same issue was raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who rightly pushed us to make sure we are delivering this at pace. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam also talked about doing things at pace; “pace” is a word I use a lot in my Department—my officials will probably support that remark—so I totally agree with him. If I may say so, I think the pace in a Department should be dictated by Ministers, so it is my responsibility to make sure that the schemes are delivered at pace.
My hon. Friend wished the House a merry Christmas; I am pleased, and I think we should all be pleased, that 27 families have had convictions overturned and may be able to enjoy their Christmas a little bit more than previous Christmases. Their ability not only to receive compensation, but to move on and move away from some of the trials and tribulations that they have faced in getting compensation and getting justice, is welcomed by everyone in the House.
As always, I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for the work she does on the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. She pointed out the very significant value that post offices have in communities. I could not agree with her more that the disclosure areas were unacceptable. That should not have happened and we made that very clear to Post Office management. I agree with her entirely on Fujitsu. Anybody who is shown to be responsible for the scandal should be held accountable, and that may also include compensation. We have stated that on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. She refers to senior executives in terms of the inquiry sub-metric, having repaid bonuses voluntarily. Those are not something we would want to see in future. I also agree with her and others, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, about some of the people who have been instrumental in this matter outside this House. She referred to Dan Neidle. Nick Wallis, Karl Flinders and Tom Witherow have also been important contributors in ensuring that sub-postmasters get the justice they deserve.
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham again for all his work and for his work on the advisory board. He talks about a sword of Damocles and is right to say that we are removing it. He speaks very movingly about Tom Brown and what happened to him: the indignity of having his home searched, hardship, bankruptcy, the impact on his family, and his reputation in the community. All were intolerable situations. He sadly passed away prior to receiving compensation. In my constituency, Sam Harrison, a sub-postmaster in Nawton, near Helmsley, went through a similar set of circumstances, certainly in relation to financial difficulty. She sadly passed away earlier this year without receiving compensation. There is a huge human cost, as well as a financial cost. I talked to the advisory board about potential counselling that might be made available to sub-postmasters. We also talked about restorative justice. Sir Wyn Williams has referred to that and it is something we are keen to look at.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a predecessor to the Horizon scheme in the north-east. If we are on the same page, I understand that was a pilot scheme for Horizon, so we are confident that our current compensation schemes can deliver outcomes and compensation for the individuals he refers to, but if he does not agree with that I am very happy to have a conversation with him.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is welcome, but I think the Minister knows my views on the advisory board. We need to try to find out exactly how many people were prosecuted and in what circumstances. It shocked me, and I think the Minister too, that even with all the publicity about Horizon, no one actually said, “By the way, we had this scheme.” If it had not come out in the inquiry, or I had not intervened to see that individual in the north-east, would it just have been forgotten about?
Kevin Hollinrake
Those people will not be forgotten about. I am very happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman and the advisory board on any matter he raises with me. I think we are very like-minded on all the issues he has brought to us so far and we are keen to deliver solutions where we think they are required. I agree with him about Sir Ross Cranston. I worked with Sir Ross from the Back Benches. He came in with the review of the Lloyds-HBOS scheme and did a fantastic job. I also agree with him on holding individuals to account. Whether it be Lloyds, HBOS or Post Office Ltd, I do not think we will ever stop these things happening until we hold individuals to account. He talked about Paula Vennells’ CBE. I think Sir Tom Scholar, the head of the relevant body on the forfeiture of honours, has said that we need to wait until the end of the inquiry to consider that, but it should certainly be looked at. I completely associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Gentleman’s former constituent Tom Brown in relation to holding people to account.
In response to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), yes we are allowing ourselves extra timescales but we do not want to use them. On the Christmas deadline, I think we are on the same page on this. It was Christmas this year for the Horizon shortfall scheme. We have now delivered offers to 100% of those people who have applied through that scheme, which meets our objective. Nevertheless, many of those cases are complex and not everything is in our gift to ensure that claims are put in promptly so that they can be dealt with quickly.
I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim for his kind words. I commit absolutely to giving regular updates to the House. I am very happy to come to speak to hon. Members about this, both on the Floor of the House and by other means. There are regular updates about compensation payments on the gov.uk website. I agree entirely with him about accountability and the need to ensure that the guilty are held responsible. He is right to say we will be rigorous with anybody who is shown to be guilty, including at Fujitsu. He is also right to say that there are some things associated with a tremendous scandal that we can never compensate people for. That is why we are here, keen to deliver a final resolution to these problems.
My Department and I continue to work hard to ensure that those affected by the Horizon scandal receive the full and fair compensation that they are owed. The Bill is just part of the action that the Government are taking to defend the interests of postmasters. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill: Money
Tuesday 19th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 December 2023 - (19 Dec 2023)
Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill
Tuesday 19th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 December 2023 - (19 Dec 2023)
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that, in this capacity, I am not the Deputy Speaker, but “Chair”, “Mr Chairman” or whatever you want—just not “Mr Deputy Speaker.”
The Second Deputy Chairman
And not Nige, either.
Clause 1
Expenditure in connection with compensation schemes relating to Post Office Horizon system etc.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
Thank you, Chair Nige—el.
We had a useful Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the constructive contributions from Members across the House. I welcome the chance for a more detailed examination of the Bill in this Committee of the whole House.
Clause 1 provides the continuing legal basis to pay compensation to members of the group litigation order scheme beyond the current deadline of 7 August 2024. As we have discussed, that is the deadline by which the Government aim to have concluded compensation payments to GLO members, but that power removes any doubt as to our ability to fund compensation beyond that date should it prove necessary.
Clause 1 does that by empowering the Secretary of State to make payments
“under, or in connection with, schemes or other arrangements—
(a) to compensate persons affected by the Horizon system;
(b) to compensate persons in respect of other matters identified in High Court judgments given in proceedings relating to the Horizon system.”
That definition provides additional flexibility beyond the specific GLO scheme to facilitate compensation payments related to Horizon should it ever be required in future.
Clause 2 sets out the short title of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Eligibility of Potential Claimants
“The Secretary of State must amend the schemes to which this Act applies to ensure that—
(a) all persons affected by the Horizon system who have had their convictions quashed are compensated on the same basis, regardless of the rationale of the decision to quash the conviction; and
(b) all persons affected by the Horizon system with extant convictions relating to the Horizon system are compensated on the same basis as those claimants with quashed convictions, with the exception of those claimants whose convictions were based on clear, compelling and corroborated evidence.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). The clause would do two things: first, it would provide that all those with overturned convictions would receive compensation on the same basis, including the so-called public interest cases. Secondly, it would provide for all those with convictions that have not been overturned to receive compensation on the same basis as those with overturned convictions. I will deal with both issues in turn.
Reference has already been made to the number of overturned convictions that have gone through the Court of Appeal. Lord Arbuthnot and I approached the criminal cases review body about 10 years ago to highlight the injustice of these cases. In 2020, the Criminal Cases Review Commission started referring cases to the courts to overturn the convictions—the number of Post Office Horizon cases sent back to the courts has already made this the most widespread miscarriage of justice seen by the CCRC. Many of those cases have been described in quite a lot of detail today, with individuals such as pregnant women and others being sent to prison, including individuals who have since had their convictions overturned.
In April 2021, 39 former sub-postmasters had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that the Post Office should not have prosecuted them in the first place, and found the Post Office’s conduct to be
“an affront to the conscience of the court”.
What has subsequently come out in the inquiry makes me wonder how on earth some of these people slept at night, knowing what they knew at the time while pursuing those individuals in court. Earlier, I made reference to Paula Vennells, who I understand is also an ordained Church of England priest—she clearly did not extend her godliness and forgiveness to those who were clearly innocent, but who she was quite content to see prosecuted. As far back as 2011, if not earlier, she knew that the Post Office system was not infallible, as other things possibly are in biblical spheres.
As the right hon. Member for East Antrim said, the idea that we suddenly had a huge influx of kleptomaniacs working for the Post Office—that all these individuals were somehow guilty—was absurd. It should have rung alarm bells, but it did not. The Post Office went on regardless. Not only did it pursue people and take them through the courts, but it took individuals such as Tom Brown to court and then, at the last minute, supplied no evidence, having already ruined those people’s reputations and lives.
As has been said, 93 individuals have had their convictions overturned so far, but there are many more people whose convictions remain unchallenged. We have had some debate on the advisory board about the numbers—I think the figure for the Post Office is about 700, but another 200-odd cases relating to Horizon issues were prosecuted by other bodies, including the Department for Work and Pensions. It worries me that only 93 of the 700 Post Office cases have been overturned.
Some people might ask, “Why haven’t these individuals come forward?” Having met many of them—those who have had their convictions overturned, or other victims of the sub-postmasters injustice—I think that they just want to close this chapter of their lives. They are not going to go anywhere near a court, and in some cases they have passed away. However, I urge anyone who was prosecuted to please try to come forward, although I know how difficult that is for some individuals. It is to the credit of the Minister and the Department that they have tried to reach out to some of these people but, as I say, having met them, I know that is not very easy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for speaking powerfully to new clause 1. As the Minister heard, he raised the important point that 93 convictions have already been overturned, and there are hundreds of other people who just do not have the bandwidth to face the trauma of having to go through the legal process. It is imperative that the Government ensure that we get ahead of this issue and do not have to come back to the House to consider how we support that group of people who do not have the appropriate compensation programme in place. I encourage the Minister to consider the new clause seriously, and to work with us to ensure that we address the issues that that group of sub-postmasters face.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of those sub-postmasters’ convictions were not built on sound evidence, and they were based on guilty pleas that they were advised to offer to reduce the sentences put before them for false reasons. As he also pointed out, we saw the spectre of the Post Office spending £100 million of public money—taxpayers’ money—to go after those sub-postmasters and cause the injustice that we are now trying to correct. It is therefore crucial that those who do not want to go through a legal process, because of the trauma they have faced, have the support of the Government in dealing with this issue separately through the Department’s work. My right hon. Friend is involved in that, working with the Minister, his officials and my party.
The new clause would ensure that the victims of all Horizon-related convictions that have not been quashed were entitled to compensation on the same basis, as has been pointed out. My right hon. Friend is not pressing the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister takes it seriously. I know that when he was on the Back Benches, he was a powerful campaigner on not only this issue but many others. As he is in a position of power, we look to him to make sure that the hundreds of others in this position are properly supported and protected, and that they do not face the double jeopardy of being victims without the compensation that the vast majority of them rightly deserve.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his new clause on the eligibility of convicted claimants to access compensation. Eligibility for compensation currently depends on a conviction being overturned. Appeals against convictions in a magistrates court go to the Crown court, where a retrial of the original offence is held. When deciding whether to oppose an appeal in the Crown court, the prosecution must apply the relevant test in the code for Crown prosecutors. That test has two parts. First, the evidence must be such that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. In some cases, that test is met because a prosecution concludes that Horizon evidence was not essential to the case. In those cases, the prosecution must consider the second test, which is whether it is in the public interest to hold a retrial. Retrying someone for an offence allegedly committed years ago, for which they have already been punished, would be harsh. In such cases, the convictions are quashed on public interest, rather than on evidential grounds. Those cases differ from those where Horizon evidence was essential to the prosecution and an appeal is conceded by the Post Office.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about guilty pleas, there are cases where convictions have been made upon Horizon grounds where there were guilty pleas, but those have now been overturned. A guilty plea is not a barrier in itself. Notwithstanding that, it is open to claimants to submit a claim to the Post Office compensation scheme.
I recognise the concerns expressed by many about how the Post Office appears to have discharged its prosecutorial powers. Accordingly, we should remain open to considering any new evidence on liability in relation to these specific public interest cases. The right hon. Gentleman’s new clause refers to the payment of compensation to people with convictions. He is right to say that to date the courts have only overturned 93 cases, which is a small fraction of the more than 900 convictions prosecuted by Post Office and non-Post Office prosecutors during the time that Horizon was active that therefore could be unsafe.
I note that in addition to the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Post Office has adopted a more proactive approach to encouraging appeals by conducting a review of cases that have not yet been appealed. Independent counsel instructed by the Post Office will review cases to determine whether it already holds sufficient material to reach a view as to whether an individual’s case could be conceded, were an appeal to be brought. Where the Post Office identifies such cases, it will write to the postmaster to notify them that it would not oppose any future appeal based on the information it currently holds and to set out what to do next to initiate an appeal. I strongly share the advisory board’s desire to see more innocent postmasters receive compensation.
The right hon. Gentleman set out the letter that the advisory board recently sent to the Justice Secretary, and I completely understand the reluctance of postmasters to come forward to appeal their convictions. It must be very hard to trust authority when it is authority that has let them down for decades.
Some of the evidence given to the Williams inquiry about the way prosecutions were handled by Post Office is horrifying. There are obvious implications for the safety of prosecutions, and the way disclosures seem to have been handled meant that defence lawyers were inevitably fighting a losing battle. When a postmaster does get to the Court of Appeal, the onus is on them to show that their conviction is unsafe. I recognise all the difficulties that that burden of proof causes, especially with the passage of time leading to evidence being lost or destroyed. It does not seem right that these people face an uphill battle to clear their names.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Mr Jones, you indicated that you did not wish to press the new clause to a vote. Is that still your intention?
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a great pleasure to be speaking on Third Reading. As we have heard this afternoon, this small but important Bill will ensure that victims of the Horizon scandal, who have suffered over a period of more than 20 years, are not timed out on their rightful compensation because of an arbitrary deadline.
This Government have responded to the concerns of campaigners and of the statutory inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams, which recommended this legislative action in its interim report in July. The Government will continue to ensure that GLO scheme members are compensated as quickly as possible, and our intention remains that this should be done by next August. However, this Bill will ensure that those entitled to compensation, who have waited too long for justice, are not rushed or bounced into making a decision on final settlements, which should be full and fair.
May I thank Opposition Members and the usual channels for enabling swift consideration of the Bill? I thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, the Clerks, the doorkeepers, and Members of different parties who have participated in today’s debates. I also thank my officials in the Department, who have worked hard to prepare and deliver this Bill at pace while continuing to run the GLO scheme.
The Bill is a further demonstration of the action that the Government are taking to address the wrongs of the past and to demonstrate that we are firmly on the side of postmasters. I commend it to the House.
Rushanara Ali
I am pleased that the Bill will pass and make at least some effort in addressing this injustice—to the extent that that is possible. What the sub-postmasters have gone through is horrific: as we have heard, they have suffered from years of uncertainty, years of not being listened to and years of not getting the justice they deserve. The Government must act quickly to process claims and provide the compensation that people desperately need. Even though the Bill will extend the compensation deadline, it is crucial that the Minister and his team act with urgency to ensure that this miscarriage of justice is addressed.
I thank the officials, the Clerks, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all those involved in getting the Bill through. Most importantly, I thank those who have campaigned tirelessly—the sub-postmasters and all those who have supported them in the legal system and beyond—to bring this issue to the fore. I also thank Members of this House and the other House for all that they have done collectively to bring it to our attention and the Government’s attention. We would not be here today if it was not for all those who campaigned. Let us be clear: we need to learn the lessons—I hope that the inquiry will help with that—to ensure that an injustice like this never happens again and that taxpayers’ money is not used to persecute people who should never have been pursued in such a way.
Mr Kevan Jones
I welcome the Bill’s passage, which is another small step on a long road. I note what the Minister said about the response to the overturned convictions, which will be difficult, but, as he well knows, we have been there before over the last few years. Again, I thank him for his active involvement.
I also thank the other members of the advisory board—Professor Chris Hodges, Professor Richard Moorhead and Lord Arbuthnot—for their continuing work. We will no doubt be meeting shortly, in the new year, to ensure that we achieve what we all want, with people getting the compensation they deserve as well as the answers. I thank the Minister’s officials, and in particular Carl Creswell, Rob Brightwell and Eleri Wones. They may seem long-suffering given some of the expressions they give to advisory board members when we raise more work and more difficult tasks for them to do, but without their support we could not have got to where we are today. Officials are sometimes not thanked, but it is right to thank them for their work on this. Again, what the Minister and all of us want is for the system to work and for it to go some way to help heal the great wrong done to the individuals concerned.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for chairing our proceedings. I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and Members of the House all the best for Christmas and the new year. Let us hope that in 2024 we can have a conclusion for all the compensation and, more importantly, Sir Wyn Williams’s review, which will certainly make for interesting reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will just say a few words before we bring the parliamentary proceedings to a close for yet another year. On behalf of Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team, I thank all those who work here in our Parliament for their service through the year. It does not matter in what capacity people work here; we are all a team. Without their support, we simply could not do the work that we do. A big thank you to all of you. I wish everybody—those who report on our proceedings and those who watch our proceedings diligently—a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. We do not know what next year will bring. I will carry on playing the national lottery; I will live in hope in 2024, if nothing else, as this year was not particularly fruitful—none the less, I will carry on. Merry Christmas everybody.
Local Government Funding and Food Voucher Provision
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of resident of the United Kingdom regarding local government funding and food voucher provision.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that many families are living in poverty and that the school holidays in particular are a difficult time for families who are struggling to afford to feed their children; further that Coventry City Council has in recent years supported these families through provision of food vouchers over school holidays; further that due to years of real terms cuts to local government budgets, Coventry Council can no longer afford to continue this provision of food vouchers over the school holidays; further that due to years of real term cuts to local government budgets, Coventry Council can no longer afford to continue this provision.
The petitioners therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide increased support for local councils so that they can maintain services including cost-of-living support, and specifically for Coventry Council to be given adequate support to continue their provision of food vouchers to families in need over the school holidays including Christmas.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002892]
Transport Infrastructure: Cullompton
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have secured the final debate of 2023. I understand that I have until about half past seven, but given that I am the only thing standing between the Minister and sherry, mince pies and wrapping gifts by the fire, I probably will not take the full two hours and 20 minutes.
I have a request of the Minister this afternoon. I am asking this Government to deliver the people of Cullompton a gift that everyone there has been asking for for years: the Cullompton relief road and the railway station. Cullompton is a rural market town nestled in the Culm valley. There has been a town there since Roman times—if you go out and knock on doors in the area, people will tell you that they have been waiting that long for the relief road and the railway station. The layout of the town would be familiar to anyone who has visited a small west country town: it has one major road, straddled by shops and houses. The town centre is very much the beating heart of the community. It has a regular farmers market that takes place once a month, every second Saturday. The economy of the town is built on a past involving wool, cloth and leather working, but in recent years it is very much a commuter community, with people making journeys to Exeter in particular.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Earlier this year, I distributed a survey across Cullompton to ask residents about their transport priorities. The responses made it crystal clear that a railway station was much needed, alongside a relief road and M5 junction upgrades. Residents tell me on the doorstep that new housing must come with infrastructure first, and they are right. While in the Department for Transport, I worked with the community and Conservative county councillor John Berry to secure a new railway station, after meetings with the Chancellor, the Transport Secretary and the Rail Minister. Local residents in Cullompton have waited long enough. It is time for decisive action, not just warm words. Does the hon. Member need a hand to get a relief road, too?
Richard Foord
My neighbour, the hon. Member for Exmouth, is quite right that people in Cullompton are calling for this, but they have had enough of surveys. They have been consulted until their pens have no ink left in them. In 2018, Devon County Council ran a survey on the Cullompton town centre relief road. Another survey, organised by Cullompton Community Association fields, revealed that people were torn but would give up their community fields for the sake of a relief road to stop the awful congestion in the centre of the town. Now there is to be a further consultation, on both the relief road and junction 28, on which progress also needs to be made; I will expand on that shortly. People in Cullompton are sick of being consulted. They want to see action, and in particular they do not want to see surveys that are simply a means of harvesting voter intention data.
Huge volumes of traffic pass through Cullompton every day. The town is home to roughly 9,000 people, but it is reckoned that 37,000 a day commute into and out of Exeter, and many of them are from Cullompton. Traffic often becomes backed up and gridlocked, especially at busy times—early in the morning, or when children are picked up from school. I experienced that at first hand recently when driving to one of my advice surgeries in Cullompton. So bad was the congestion that I had to turn the engine off to stop it idling and releasing pollution.
Planning permission for the relief road was granted by Mid Devon District Council in January 2021, not without cost to local amenities. I have played football with my children at the CCA fields, and I know that members of the cricket and bowling clubs would love to have better pitches or greens, but above all else they want certainty: they want to know what the future of the town will look like. What they do not want is an enormous amount of housing with no supporting infrastructure. The Minister and other Members will have heard about the appeals that have taken place, but I should point out that Cullompton is a special case. There are plans for a north-west urban extension, and also for a garden village.
As Members will know, garden villages were an initiative thought up in 2017, and the Culm garden village is set to add 5,000 new houses to the town. If that were accompanied by promises of a new GP centre, new community sports facilities, new schools, new bus links and new cricket pitches, those might offer some amelioration, but all that people in Cullompton are seeing is more houses. We cannot keep building houses without the appropriate infrastructure to support them. Our roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic that we are seeing.
Then there is question of the motorway. The M5 goes past Cullompton, and junction 28 is one of the more congested motorway junctions. In fact, it is dangerously congested. National Highways said recently that it was
“unable to support development which introduces an unacceptable risk to highway safety, which includes queuing extending onto the M5”.
“Development” is actually a euphemism for housing. What National Highways is really saying is that we cannot afford more housing in this town, because it will simply cause queues on the motorway—but the queues are not just on the motorway; they are also through the town itself. All the motorists who get snarled up in the town, idling in traffic, know that they should be looking to Westminster and Whitehall for the solutions. Cullompton Town Council itself has said that it will “actively oppose” any residential development at east Cullompton until the town centre relief road is delivered and the capacity of junction 28 is increased. That will need to include safe pedestrian crossings over the M5, the railway and the river.
It is about time that Westminster and Whitehall took a look at that, because it is something that MPs and candidates through the ages have called for. Certainly, in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election last year, the Conservative candidate and I both called for it. As Cullompton’s MP, I have raised the issue in Parliament on multiple occasions and urged Ministers to consider how the lack of a relief road is affecting people in Cullompton. In the local elections earlier this year, Cullompton went Liberal Democrat. I dare say that that was a sign of people’s protests, and an indication that they are not prepared to put up with being overlooked on this issue by the Conservative Government here in Westminster.
We saw the welcome Network North announcements this autumn, but the opportunity to fund the relief road was passed over in rounds 1 and 2 of the levelling-up fund and, although we did not know it at the time, in round 3 as well, when Devon did not get any levelling-up funding at all. With all the furore, anyone would think that the relief road was going to be enormously expensive, but in the context of the sorts of figures that the Department for Transport is dealing with, I suggest that £35 million is not enormous, particularly as £10 million of that has already been secured by Homes England. To get best value out of that, the Government will want to match-fund against that £10 million from the housing infrastructure fund, for which there is a deadline.
It is thought that the upgrade to junction 28 would cost a further £34 million. That is a much more expensive proposition, but a lot of work has gone into it, costing £800,000 so far. That has resulted in a robust and financially sound business case. The junction 28 proposal contained 25 options, such was the diligent work that went into it, and they have been whittled down to just three. The proposal has now gone out to public consultation, with a deadline of 5 February. Members will forgive the people of Cullompton for being tired of being consulted on these matters; they just want to see action.
The case for the relief road and junction 28 is also health-related, as it relates to traffic and congestion. This is why we also need a railway station at Cullompton. There was a recent announcement of funding to reopen Cullompton station. Again, Network North was something of a re-announcement, but we were certainly glad to be part of the restoring your railway announcement in 2020. A strategic outline business case was developed last year and it will go to a full business case in 2024, with the potential opening of Cullompton railway station in 2025. I work alongside my co-chair, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), as part of the metro board looking at every stage of the development and at how Network Rail and Great Western Railway are doing, perhaps giving them a little bit of a nudge when necessary but absolutely supporting their excellent work.
A railway station at Cullompton, along with the improvements to junction 28 and a relief road, will help with air pollution. The air quality management area in Cullompton has good monitoring, but I am afraid it reveals very poor outcomes for people’s health. It is estimated that the building of the relief road and the improvements to junction 28 would result in a reduction in the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air of between 69% and 79%. That would clearly improve people’s health locally.
There are also plans afoot for walking and cycling. I have had people working with me on cycle routes in the area. Sustrans is considering linking Tiverton and Exeter through Cullompton, and there is a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan for connecting Willand and Uffculme. Together, all these initiatives—the relief road, the railway station and the walking, cycling and wheeling routes—will make a very friendly part of Devon into an environmentally friendly one.
In closing, I give credit to Neil Parish, my predecessor, who worked on this during his time as an MP, and to local Liberal Democrat campaigners who have been working with me on the operational details. I hope that we can think of today’s debate in the context of Christmas present. The word “present” in that context is usually associated with a gift, but I would like the Government to think of it in the context of the present tense—that is to say, I hope that we might see some action on Cullompton railway station, the relief road and junction 28 in the present and not at some unspecified point in the future. Those would be gifts for which I know that people in mid-Devon would be very grateful.
Simon Jupp
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek an apology, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) did not name my constituency correctly in response to my intervention. He referred to me as the MP for Exmouth, but my constituency also includes Sidmouth and I should be referred to as the MP for East Devon. He has done this politically in local newspapers and leaflets. I wish also to clarify that Devon was successful, to the tune of nearly £40 million, in the most recent round of levelling-up funding, just to correct the researcher or whoever wrote the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I seek an apology for my constituency being named incorrectly, and a promise from the hon. Gentleman that he will not do so again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) is not indicating that he wishes to say anything further to that point of order, in which case it stands on the record.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I thank both the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for their contributions to this debate on transport infrastructure in Cullompton. It is an honour and a privilege to address this issue on behalf of the Department for Transport. I have a sense of déjà vu all over again, as I responded to yesterday’s Adjournment debate—and I will be responding to the first Adjournment debate in the new year on Monday 8 January.
As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton eloquently said, it is important to stress that transport infrastructure matters to everybody. I assure the House that I will not be using my full two hours and three minutes either, but, much as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, I start by wishing everybody in the Chamber, all parliamentary staff, the Department for Transport team, those working in transport over the holiday period and my private office team of Juliette, Tessa, Aleena, Beth, Laura, Jack and Tom a happy Christmas.
As the last Minister to address the House in 2023, I want to say that democracy requires work and sacrifice. Our thanks, in particular, go to His Majesty’s constabulary, who keep us safe. We wish them a happy Christmas. We remember, sadly, the loss of PC Keith Palmer, who was killed in March 2017, and we understand very clearly that these men and women keep us and democracy safe. That should not be forgotten in any way.
As a Transport Minister, it is not for me to comment on the quality of councils’ bids to the levelling-up fund and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but I will attempt to address the points that relate to this debate. I will try my hardest to address the widespread gentle criticism that there has not been investment in the south-west, and in Devon in particular. I will address Cullompton, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight the important work the Government are doing to improve journeys right across the south-west, and particularly in Devon.
Clearly, we remain committed to a long-term, multi-road programme of investment to improve road links to the region. By 2025, we will have completed a 3-mile upgrade between Sparkford and Ilchester. A combination of Government and local funding has enabled the delivery of £5.7 million of support for the Tiverton eastern urban extension, providing access to a site of more than 1,500 dwellings and associated employment. Additional transport infrastructure has been delivered at junction 27 of the M5 and at the A30 Honiton junction. The A361 north Devon link road scheme, which passes through the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will also provide benefits to the area by improving connectivity to northern Devon. The £60 million provided by the Government will see full delivery of the scheme in 2024. Obviously, those projects will deliver significant benefits for the travelling public, but they will also boost the wider economy and support wider plans for growth.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rail. Clearly, we have unlocked further prosperity for the region. That includes more than £50 million for the Dartmoor line, which has provided hourly services between Okehampton and Exeter since reopening in 2021. It is the first restoring your railway scheme to be delivered, and local people have enjoyed rail access to employment, education and leisure opportunities for the first time in almost 50 years.
The Secretary of State opened the new accessible station at Marsh Barton in Devon earlier this year, which came about with the help of £3.5 million of new stations funding. That is another great example of a locally led but nationally supported rail project, and one that clearly gives an economic boost to not only Devon, but the wider region. The Government have also invested more than £150 million to make the vital coastal rail link through Dawlish more resilient, helping to deliver the reliable service that communities deserve.
As part of Network North, we have made funding available for the final phase of the south-west rail resilience programme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Network North, and Devon will receive more than £208 million through the roads resurfacing fund over the next 11 years, including an additional £6.66 million for the next two years, to combat potholes, which cause misery for drivers. For context, in this year alone that equates to a 16.6% uplift to the county council’s 2023 pothole budget.
I could go on about that in more detail, but I will move on to buses. Clearly, the £2 bus fare that the Government have rolled out across the country is exceptionally popular, and the bus fare cap has been extended until the end of December 2024. The national bus strategy asked that all English local transport authorities outside London publish a bus service improvement plan, setting out local visions for the future of bus services, driven by what passengers and would-be passengers want. That is backed by more than £1 billion of funding and the investment can be used to support and protect existing bus services that would otherwise be at risk. To support Devon County Council, we have allocated £17.4 million to deliver its BSIP, which will support service improvements such as increased frequency between Cullompton and Tiverton Parkway, a new service from Cullompton to Honiton railway station, and improvements to services 4 and 380.
In addition, we have provided support for active travel, with investment for drivers and public transport users being assisted by local cycling and walking infrastructure plans—LCWIPs. They allow local authorities to take a long-term approach when developing cycling and walking networks, helping to identify improvements that can be made over a 10-year period. Devon County Council is developing its Cullompton and Tiverton LCWIP. Obviously, we await the plan for consideration. That joint project with Mid Devon District Council focuses on a core area of Cullompton and considers strategic links south to Killerton and north-west to Willand, Tiverton Parkway and Tiverton. As I understand it, a consultation will be held shortly to seek the community’s views on the proposed plans. Identifying improvements through an LCWIP will support Devon County Council to include Cullompton within its pipeline of schemes for future funding rounds and to build on the £7 million-worth of funding the council has been awarded in recent years to both develop active travel and promote its use.
On multi-modal projects, for transport infrastructure to make a real difference to people who choose to live, work and do business in the south-west, we cannot operate in silos. We therefore take a holistic approach to connectivity. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will be aware of the £15.7 million Destination Exmouth levelling-up scheme that delivers benefits for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users alike. The West Devon transport hub has also received funding from a levelling-up fund scheme.
The hon. Gentleman raised specific matters relating to Cullompton. I accept entirely that the town has grown. I know the area well, as I represented individuals in a case at Taunton Crown court back in the distant dark ages before the turn of the century and spent some time there. I accept entirely that it has grown considerably and that there are plans to grow it more. It has developed into a commuter town, particularly to Exeter, and with its close proximity to the M5, I accept that there is high dependency on travel by car. However, it is also connected to Exeter by a bus service every 20 minutes, the frequency of which, I understand, will be increased to every 15 minutes in 2024.
The Government have a history of investing in the area. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, who he rightly lauded as a strong constituency MP, was championing Tiverton and Honiton, a £1.8 million funding package between 2013 and 2016 delivered improvements to junction 28 of the M5, which included widening and signal upgrading. I am also aware that a project is being undertaken by Devon County Council to enhance the look and feel of the heritage town centre, including some minor transport-related improvements, which is on track to be completed in 2024.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Cullompton relief road. With respect, it is not for the Government to do the job of the local council in the making of such an application. The Government are not the local planning authority in respect of any particular garden village. The council needs to make the case and plan the infrastructure. I cannot comment on the nature of the levelling-up bid or its ongoing progress, but clearly there is work being done on junction 28. Some £900,000 has been secured from Homes England to support the development of a strategic outline business case.
Although I am not the Rail Minister, I will address the issue of rail, which the hon. Gentleman raised. As I understand it, the railway station closed in 1964 and the town will be potentially seven times the size it was then in the next couple of decades. Through Network North—the Government’s decision to cancel parts of the HS2 project and redistribute funds across the country—I was delighted that £5 million was secured to reopen the station. Fast trains to London and Exeter will unlock great opportunities for the community, and I look forward to seeing the station in operation as early as 2025.
The hon. Gentleman made many other points. With respect, I cannot answer for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but he seeks support for various other matters. I would only make the point that it is for him and his local council to make the case for the infrastructure that he seeks and to put that in an appropriate form, so that any funding can follow. I am not aware that he sought any specific meetings with my predecessor, but I am happy to take away the points he raised today.
It is right and proper that the hon. Gentleman raises issues that matter to his local community on its behalf. I reassure the House that the Government are continuing to provide record levels of investment for road, rail, buses and active travel projects. It is our mission to level up transport infrastructure and to unlock further growth for all corners of the UK, and I thank him for bringing this matter to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the last time in 2023, I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Work and Pensions
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
[Official Report, 18 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 1111.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).
The correct response should have been:
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 are on zero-hours contracts and 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.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christmas, Christianity and Communities
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Christmas, Christianity and communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. The motion is on Christmas, Christianity and communities, and I will speak of all three. “Silver bells, silver bells, it’s Christmas time in the city”—I remember that song playing so often when I was young. My mum loved Christmas; I think that is why I love it so much now. The city streets look so wonderful with all the lights shining brightly. There are Christingle services with church choirs singing carols old and new—what is your favourite, Dame Maria? Slade and Mariah Carey are playing on every radio station, local and national; there are bustling shops; people are rushing about, trying to get a present for a loved one; and Santa’s sleigh is making appearances up and down the country in our villages and towns. Lions Clubs do so much good work, raising money for numerous charities while spreading festive cheer. Father Christmas is in department stores and garden centres. Advent calendars are excitedly opened by kids—and adults—across the country, counting down to this very special day. There are Christmas get-togethers, the sharing of cards, Christmas movies—it truly is the best time for so many of us.
Christmas is obviously getting very commercialised, and as I mentioned in my Easter debate, there will always be those who want to change the name of these festive periods and who want us to forget the real meaning of Christmas. But with 2 billion-plus people across the globe who all know the reason for Christmas, we can be safe in the knowledge that the reason will never be forgotten. To make sure we do not forget, however, I will play my part now and make sure we all know.
We celebrate Christmas because of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin named Mary, in a barn—the most unlikely place for the king of kings.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is widely acknowledged that Mary and Joseph were migrants travelling by unconventional means. Had the authorities in Bethlehem decreed that migrants travelling by unconventional means should be deported to Rwanda, how much further would the three wise men have had to travel to celebrate the birth of our Lord?
Nick Fletcher
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I expected something exactly like that from someone like him during this debate. I will continue with my speech, and will address his comment any time he wants, out and about.
Jesus was visited by those deemed the lowest in society—the shepherds—and by the highest, the wise men. He was raised as all boys were at that time. Jesus would have gone through many of the challenges we all face but always in the knowledge of His heavenly father. He had siblings. He learnt a trade from His father, Joseph, a carpenter, but then, in His 30s, He started to spread the word about His reason for being here. He carried out miracles and preached as no one had before or ever will again. He told the world that the only way to be right with the Lord and have eternal life was to believe in Him. He knew His time was limited on this earth and that He would have to make the ultimate sacrifice for all of us. He knew he would be crucified, and He was—crucified so that all those who believe in Him will be forgiven. He made the final sacrifice so that we can be right with our maker, not through words or deeds but simply by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
What does that mean to us, 2,000 years later? It means simply this: if we repent and ask Christ to come into our lives, He will. That is it: the greatest gift we can ever be given is simply an ask away. It does not matter what you have done in the past. No matter what your thoughts or deeds have been, what addiction you have, whether you are in prison or not, or whether you are wealthy or broke or healthy or sick, just ask Him to come into your life, and He will. You can ask Him alone or with others, in church or not, on your knees or not, eyes closed or not. You just need to ask, and there is never a better time than now.
Do not think that you are not good enough to ask—that is what I thought. I lived for decades without the Lord because I thought I was not good enough to be a Christian. Trust me, you will never not be good enough and nor will I. Forget all your reservations and just ask, and when you do, you will start watching the negatives in your life fall away. Why? Because you will fill all those voids in your life—the ones you have filled with poor choices—with the truth that our Lord, Jesus Christ, loves you. From that moment forward, you will never be alone and will never be without help or hope, because our Lord is always with us.
I have spent much time this year talking about suicide. Two of the many issues related to that are loneliness and the feeling of having no value. With Christ in your life, you are never alone and you can be happy in the knowledge that the Lord values you. What a wonderful gift that is. We really need to spread this message.
The next thing you need to do is to let people know and to seek out your local church. The Church was always at the heart of the community. Sadly, some churches are closing. I often speak about building a strong local economy. If we all buy online, there will be no shops. Likewise, if we do not go to our local churches, they will inevitably close. At Easter, I spoke about the importance of our Christian heritage and about the wonderful chapels and churches that make our towns and villages the places that they are. They are also home to a Christian community that is leaned on by many in society when a tragedy happens. Unless we go to those chapels and churches, they will no doubt close their doors, just like our shops have. So when you have decided to let Christ into your life, if you were not already in church when that happened, go down to your local church and tell them of your decision—they will be delighted to see you. There is a church community out there that is just waiting to welcome you: a community that is full of forgiveness and care, love and hope—a community that needs you.
This Christmas, make that decision to follow Christ and then become part of that community, which can change our society as a whole. We were never meant to be alone. We were meant to be in families and in a community, with faith at the centre of our lives. I hope that all Members agree with that, and I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to promote our communities and our churches.
This wonderful gift of forgiveness and eternal life was given to us at Christmas, and it is a gift that we must share. But we must also engage in the forgiveness part. If there is one thing that we can and should do as Christians, more than anything else, it is to forgive those who have wronged us. This place is meant to reflect society and, although that is often a good thing, sadly it also reflects the bad in society: anger at each other, gossip and lies, selfishness and attempts to get ahead. We can all be guilty of some, if not all of those. If God can send His only son for Him to eventually die on a cross for our sins, we surely must be able to forgive an act or deed against us. If you are upset with mum this Christmas, give her a call; if you are not speaking with a sibling, send them a card; if a neighbour is not currently on your Christmas card list, go and knock on their door; and if an argument with a friend has turned into six months of silence, send them a text.
Let me be the first to practise what I preach. Let me start by apologising to all those I have let down over this past year—families, friends, colleagues, the good people of this country and the Christians who think I should do better or differently. Trust me, this place can make you look like a villain even when you are not, but if I apologise here and now, hopefully you can all forgive me.
I say now that I have already forgiven those who have wronged me, especially those on social media. They call me the most awful things, Dame Maria, but trust me, I forgive them all. Why? Because God has forgiven me. What would Christmas be without forgiveness, friends, family and Christ in the centre of our communities? Happy Christmas, everyone.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on succinctly, but honestly and sincerely putting forward the greatest story ever told, as it truly is. As I look around Westminster Hall, I see many kindred spirits, like the hon. Gentleman who set the scene. I think my contribution will be replicated by others—we will all have the same story and will all be telling the greatest story ever told.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. We have been in Westminster Hall together a few times now, and I have fond memories of, and thank him for, his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I also look forward to hearing from the two shadow spokespersons. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who will speak for the Labour party, has belief and faith, as I and others here do. I know that her contribution will reflect that, as will that of the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).
This issue is truly close to my heart. I so love Christmas because of my faith and the fact that I love Christ, which enables me to love my community. It took me some time fully to grasp the verse that I learned as a child:
“We love because he first loved us.”
At the age of eight—the hon. Member for Don Valley referred to this happening—I accepted the Lord Jesus into my heart, as a wee boy in Ballywalter. I grasped early that He loves us when we are right or wrong, when we are on the mountain top or in the valley, or when we are argumentative or are peacemakers. That encompasses all we are in this House, what we believe and what we try to put forward.
I learned that because I benefit from an all-encompassing love, and I understand that Jesus loves my neighbour, the person who comes into the office and shouts at me, and me with the very same intensity. He loves the drunk person who dented my car coming out of the pub as much as He loves me. That is what the hon. Member said: it is about loving people who sometimes might do things that injure, annoy or distress us. When I understand that, how can I help but love those He loves so passionately?
That feeling is replicated throughout the faith sector, and that is the reason why so many Christians give up their time and money to help in their communities. I want to talk about what Christians do in their communities. That unfailing love that we cherish in Christ has to be replicated, because, as He said very simply, the first commandment was to love God and the second was to love our neighbours as we love ourselves.
In this House, I have always tried, in every way that I can, to be ever mindful of those of a different political opinion, who might have different thoughts about policies. It is no secret that my policies and politics are left of centre, and a social conscience drives me in regard to the things that I believe in. In this House, however, “Do unto others as you would they do unto you” is my simple philosophy. I have tried to do that in all my time in this House and in all my life.
A survey showed that church or faith-based organisations were the most common type of organisation that individuals volunteered with—39% of individuals volunteered with those, while 29% volunteered with sports organisations and 17% volunteered with local community, neighbourhood or citizens groups. Women were more likely—the proportion was 43% —to be volunteers in church or faith-based organisations than males. The fact is that in churches, it is the women, the ladies, who keep us all in check and make the contributions, and inspire us. I am fortunate to have a 92-year-old mum who inspires me every day.
It is clear that the Church is taking the responsibility to love seriously—how can we not do likewise? When we look at the love of God, which saw the redemption story beginning at Christmas and ending with the resurrection of Christ, the message was clear: God’s unfailing, unending love always wins. It won victory then and it helps us to win victory now, including victory over loneliness. All of us know of examples of loneliness in our constituencies and communities. A young woman in my local community uses the local church hall to heat Christmas dinners for 110 lonely people on Christmas day.
Love wins when we see families with no money being given food and toys for their children by the Salvation Army and the food bank. We all have food banks, the Salvation Army and churches that contribute greatly. Love wins when we see Christian missionaries carrying out feeding programmes funded by those who are struggling themselves. Love wins, and that is all inspired by the love of God seen at Christmas in the gift of the lovely Lord Jesus, who loved me and gave Himself for me and for you—for everyone here in this Chamber, everyone outside this Chamber and all those listening to this debate.
In a world of darkness and despair, I am so thankful that the light and love of Christ can still lead the way for those who trust in Him—I am one of those people. I celebrate His birth, as we all do in this Chamber, and the changes that were wrought in me when I first trusted Him.
I love Christmas because of Christ—I think we all do. That is the thrust, the core, the story of what we are discussing today. I love my community, as others do equally—I know that. He loves them and that love inspires service and dedication. I love His Church and I am thankful for the branches throughout the world that seek to be His hands and feet across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I sincerely wish you, Dame Maria, and every right hon. and hon. Member here, a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I remind everyone of the love as they show their love to their community and family this year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We have a number of people who want to speak. If we keep contributions to about nine minutes each, we should get everybody in.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Dame Maria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing it so well, and so authentically; I think we all sensed that. I am grateful to him for giving us a reason to come here to remember the reason for the season.
It is worth pausing at the beginning of this debate. As we head back to our constituencies today, and as our constituents gather with their families to celebrate Christmas, we should have a thought for the 360 million Christians around the world who live under fairly serious forms of persecution, and who will not be able to celebrate Christmas as freely and as easily as we can, if at all. People in North Korea probably will not be able to celebrate Christmas at all, for example. Three of the 11 countries where there is extreme persecution of Christians are Commonwealth members: Nigeria, Pakistan and India. We should perhaps say a little more about that.
A couple of weeks ago, I was on a call with the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and we had the privilege of listening to the parish priest of Bethlehem, where Christians will just have prayer this Christmas, because their hearts are broken over what is happening to their Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters in Gaza. We should think of the people in the Latin Church in the north of Gaza, who are running out of food and being sniped at as they try to go to the toilet. We hope and pray that rescue will come to them shortly. We should never take for granted our freedom to worship freely in this country; it is a precious gift.
In the United Kingdom in 2023, we live in a world beset by anxiety and fear, so when I read Luke 2:10—
“Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people”—
I see so much of the answer to the problems, issues and anxieties that face our constituents. That message of the angels has never been needed more in our country than today, when a third of people live alone.
People everywhere are desperately searching for love, community and purpose. At Christmas, and quietly week by week, churches provide that relationship of love through Jesus Christ; a sense of community with fellow believers; and purpose, as regards why we are here, and what we were born for. I am told that carol services are packed, particularly with young people. Someone said yesterday that as many as half of Londoners will turn up to a carol service. There is a hunger to learn more about our faith, and for that love, purpose and sense of community.
At its best, church is family. Christianity is, at heart, a relationship of love with the Lord Jesus. The best definition of community I ever heard was from the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
“A place where they know who you are and where they miss you when you are not there.”
If you go to a church where that is not the case, it is possibly not the right church for you—or maybe, if you are in a larger church, you need to join a home group.
I have the privilege of speaking in this House on behalf of the Church of England. There are many churches up and down the country of all denominations doing fantastic work, but it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the Church of England has a presence in every community in England; it has 16,000 churches, 42 cathedrals and 31,000 social action projects, and educates 1 million children every day in church schools. That is an amazing footprint. I am grateful for those parish priests and workers who quietly, week by week, day by day, bring the light of Christ at Christmas and throughout the year.
I end by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for bringing us here this morning for an important debate that goes to the heart of so many issues in our country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance, Dame Maria, and a privilege to follow several hon. Friends, in particular my friend the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for being bold enough to secure this debate, and for delivering a great speech. I hope that I have done nothing that he needs to forgive me for.
Christmas, Christianity and community are all massively important. It is great to have this debate at this time of year. Over the past few days, I have had the joy of visiting Christmas markets at Shap and Orton, and Grange Christmas tree festival, where I gave a little talk. I read a lesson at Kendal parish church carol service, and attended the wonderful nativity at Kendal’s Dean Gibson Roman Catholic Primary School, which included the privilege of giving the award to the winner of my Christmas card competition, Anna Kay. Her design of a Herdwick sheep inside a Christmas wreath—it could not be more Lake district—is being delivered by our wonderful volunteers to 40,000 houses.
I visited several other schools that had taken part in the competition, and joined in their Christmas celebrations. What a joy all of that is. At my church in Kendal, our Christmas celebrations reach many more people than would normally attend our services. I know that is the case for churches the length and breadth of Westmorland and Lonsdale and, indeed, the whole country. I do not need any persuading that Christmas is important to communities, locally and nationally. It brings us together, family by family, street by street, village by village, town by town.
The shared acknowledgement of the importance of this festival as a time of rest and a time for family is significant for the collective life of our country. However, for those working in healthcare, social care, the police, the fire services, hospitality and many other professions, including some in my close family, it is a time of continued, if not enhanced, busyness. We are grateful to all those people; we pay tribute to them and thank them.
Traditions are important, and we have them in our family. We decorate a tree in the midst of the woods near our home in Westmorland. We do the same family walk every year on Christmas eve. We share the annual festive disappointment of an en masse family trip to Blackburn Rovers, and we watch the same films over and over. Without even checking, I know the entire script of “Home Alone” and “Home Alone 2”—not “Home Alone 3” or “Home Alone 4”, because they are abominations.
Jim Shannon
No, the most wonderful Christmas film is “It’s a Wonderful Life”, with James Stewart. That tells everything about everyone’s story, and how people influence one another. That is what we do in this House, so to me, that is the best Christmas film ever.
Tim Farron
I would say it is a tie between “Home Alone 2”—because I think Tim Curry makes it—and “It’s a Wonderful Life”. The other tradition on Christmas eve is watching “It’s a Wonderful Life”; then I sit around with my brothers-in-law and watch the “Father Ted” Christmas special—I know all the words to that, too.
Some decry the loss of the Christian message from Christmas, seeing that as an undermining of British values. I understand that concern, although I do not think it is anything particularly new. Commercialism and escapism have been displacing the Christmas message for decades if not longer, and a nice, feel-good, schmaltzy, vague magic has been allowed to displace the meaning of the nativity for longer than I have been alive, at least. I have had the best parents, but I was not brought up to go to church, although I was raised in an era when the assumption was that we believed in God—probably the Christian version. Nevertheless, the first Christmas story that I remember having read to me as a very small child was “The Night Before Christmas”, which begins:
“’Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse”.
I remember the thrill of being read that by my mum, as I perched on my bed on Christmas eve, ready to be tucked up. I was aged three and a half. There was an empty stocking hanging expectantly, and a tingling sense of excitement. Lovely and traditional though it was, it has no more to do with the Christian message of Christmas than “Home Alone”, “Love Actually”, “Elf”, or any of the other stories that we enjoy at this time of year, so before we get too upset about Christmas being joylessly erased by winter festivals and all that, let us not forget that the Christian message has always been seen as something of an inconvenience—something uncomfortable to be brushed aside, whether it is Christmas or not. In fact, Christmas is one of those rare occasions when you can more easily get away with talking about Christianity. This debate is a case in point.
My contention is that Christianity has always been and always is counter-cultural. It is meant to be. It is deeply disturbing and even offensive. I am reminded of Lucy asking Mr Beaver about Aslan in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”. She asks nervously, “Is he a tame lion?” “Oh no,” says Mr Beaver, “he’s not tame, but he is good.” He is good. Jesus is not tame; Christianity is not tame; and Christmas is not tame, but He is, and they are, good. I would say to people: if you are prepared to allow yourself to be disturbed and offended, you will discover that He is good—good for you, even.
Christmas is all about stories: there is Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol”—best performed, of course, by the Muppets—“It’s a Wonderful Life”, the “Home Alone” films and the many legends of Father Christmas and the trials of his reindeer. The Christmas story, however, is a different kind of tale altogether. It is told in just two of the gospels in the New Testament—Matthew and Luke—and the jarring thing is that the writers expect us to believe that the nativity is history. Just before Luke launches into the account of the nativity, he starts his book with this:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Those four short verses tell us something pretty shocking about the story that is to follow, in which the God of the universe writes himself into our story. He comes into the world that he created as a baby, born in poverty in an obscure corner of the Roman Empire. He comes into the world for one chief reason: to suffer and die in our place, so that sinful human beings can be forgiven our wretchedness and have eternal life. Luke’s verses tell us that this story cannot be a fairy story. It cannot be a fable or a feel-good, festive yarn. Given Luke’s introduction, this story can only reasonably be one of two things: fact or fabrication. When we look more carefully into the evidence of the eyewitnesses, we see that fabrication soon falls away as a plausible theory, too.
Maybe we get a shiver down our spine when we think of the magic of Christmas. How much more of a shiver might we get if we realised that what we read about in the nativity is true? The fact that millions have accepted that continues to be crucial to our society. The nativity tells the story of a teenage mum who, along with her husband and new child, becomes a refugee from a tyrant, lost in an empire that cares little for them and that values them as nothing more than tax fodder. There is so much there for so many people to identify with. It is a reminder that God never considers us an irrelevance or an insignificant and anonymous number; every hair on our head is numbered, and our names are written on the palm of His hands. Commercialism and escapism will not make Christmas mean anything, really.
Maybe our difficulty is that we feel inclined to miss Christmas, or at least to celebrate less, because, after all, look at the state of the world—what is there to celebrate? God looked at the world and saw the mess it was in. He did not hide under the covers; He entered in at enormous cost, because He loves us. Christians are to be the hands and feet of Jesus in our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, running the food banks, providing support for those in debt or poverty, housing the homeless, befriending the lonely, and loving our neighbour in practical ways. That is not because we seek to earn God’s favour, but in joyful response to the fact that by His Grace, we already have it, and Christmas proves that we have it.
If the Christmas story is true, yes, it is disturbing, but it means that there is justice. It means that evil does not win; good does. It means that there is love beyond our wildest dreams. It means that there is ultimate truth, and that there is meaning in every life, and in every part of every life. It means that human rights actually exist. They are not just a passing 21st-century fashion; they are the invention of the inventor of everything. Because we have ultimate dignity of bearing the image of God, that means every other human being does, too. No Parliament, President, despot or dictator can change that one jot.
Christmas is also a time of personal sadness for some. It may be the time when we feel the loss of loved ones the most. Christmas is a time of great joy for me, but all the same, this Christmas will be my 20th without my mum. I mentioned earlier that the first story I remember my mum reading to me was “The Night Before Christmas”, and the last thing I read to my mum in her hospital bed was this from the last book in the Bible, the Revelation:
“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with humans, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’”
If Luke is to be believed that the nativity is eyewitness testimony, we can believe those things, too. It means that there is real hope, even for a scumbag like me. Happy Christmas.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for—sorry, I wrote it down but I cannot read my writing—Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), which is easier to pronounce, for securing the debate and being so true to his personal conviction and faith. We have a role in sharing truths this morning.
On Christmas morning, families will gather to open gifts and enjoy traditions that have become special over the years, and we have mentioned some already. I wish them all a great day, and the very best for the year ahead. I also thank everyone who will be working on Christmas day and across the festivities. They may not be at the forefront of our minds as we wake up on the 25th, but firefighters, policemen and women, possibly road gritters, doctors and nurses will be among those giving up their family time to ensure that services are available, if we are so unfortunate as to need them. I thank all those who will be serving up meals on Christmas day. I know a project in west Cornwall that will be serving up breakfast to people who are homeless, and lunch to those who are alone, and to many others; it is offering friendship and company to those who need it. We also remember that around the world British servicemen and women will be working for peace and to protect our interests and security abroad. I pay special tribute to everyone who is working, and thank their families for their personal sacrifice at a time when the rest of us are united.
As we have just heard, we want to remember all those for whom Christmas will be a deeply sad and troubling time, because many have lost loved ones in the past year and in many previous years. Christmas, as we have heard, is a time when that is acutely painful for so many.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men on whom his favour rests.”
That is a well-known part of the biblical account of the Christmas story. They are familiar words to those of us who have attended children’s nativity plays. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale seemed to take pleasure and joy in attending so many Christmas events and nativities. This is not for anyone outside this room, but I confess—I may be the only one here being honest—that children’s nativity plays, even when my seven-year-old daughter is in them, are just not my favourite pastime. Even so, I am hopeful that they are not entirely irrelevant. I have watched lots of nativities, some better than others, and they are important. I do not particularly enjoy them, but I hope that we have not lost their relevance. I am also hopeful that the Christmas story has not just been mixed up with many fairy tales and other romantic accounts. I suspect that for many, it has; it has been mixed together with Father Christmas, elves and all sorts of other things that we love to think of.
We parliamentarians have the opportunity today to speak of the role of Christianity and Christmas in our communities. Christianity is an important part of our history, and gave birth to many of the precious institutions that we hold dear. Early Christians, for example, pioneered care of orphans and the elderly—something in which we take great interest, and take time to do today around the world. Many hospitals and schools in the UK were established by Christian organisations. In my constituency, I have old hospital buildings dedicated to the service of God, and there are ragged schools that still bear that name, set up by Christians who recognised the need for education for the poorest families and their children.
Churches and chapels were central to every community. Unfortunately, many of those are now converted into dwellings and used for other purposes. It may not be the case today that our churches and chapels are central to everything we do, but it is appropriate to recognise that although things change so quickly in modern life, the principles of the Christian faith are still the same. During my time as a Christian, I have had constituents who have questioned whether it is appropriate for a Bible-believing man who attends one of those happy clappy churches to represent them in Parliament. It makes me smile, because my motivation for serving in this place is driven by a commitment to public service that is commonplace among those all sides of the House, including among those in this room today.
Those comments cause me to pause and ask: what kind of Christianity are we presenting to those around us? Time does not permit us to go into the great depth, history and truth of the Christian faith as we see it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley did a great job of making that clear, and we have heard from others on the subject since. My faith reassures me that we human beings are not the top of the tree. In other words, if we think we have all the answers, it is for us to know how to fix the things that are not right. If we are ultimately responsible for all that occurs, whether just or unjust, that is a burden too great to bear, and certainly not one that I want to hold. Christians believe that humankind is not the top of the tree. Humankind does not have the authority, ability or understanding to claim such a role. Christians believe in a God who is far from our understanding, and who holds the world in His hands. The burden of responsibility sits with Him, and I am grateful for that.
There is, however, a challenge for us Christians; our job is much simpler, but it is important. It is our job to display love, joy and peace, to be long-suffering and to show kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I suspect that few would take issue with any of those attributes, and in a nutshell, that is what Christianity is for me. I confess, once again, that it is a journey that is not over for me yet. I have a lot to do, and my long-suffering family would keenly testify that I have not achieved those nine attributes in full.
Returning to Christmas, I quoted the words:
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men on whom his favour rests.”
The Christian principles our fathers treasured are many, and are still relevant today. Among them is a longing for peace on Earth—we have heard about the situation in Gaza and across Israel—and good will towards one another. We seem to live in a world in which it is easier to tear others down than build them up. It may not be social media that made it so, but it has certainly created a platform for sharing comments and opinions about third parties—possibly a public servant or a celebrity—with a much wider audience. Previously, those comments would have been limited to friends talking over a drink, or a discussion in a crib hut on a building site.
My hope for Christmas and 2024 is for something better. I had a discussion with a constituent in St Ives library, and he left me with a lot to think about, including his personal commitment to leaving the people he engaged with more cheerful than they were before the encounter. I have tried to apply that ever since—it has not been successful every time, but I have tried. There is so much to be thankful for, and the Christmas season often highlights that for us. As we move into a new year that has the potential to be even more toxic than the previous one, I hope for peace and for more good will to one another than we have become accustomed to.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Because everybody has been so disciplined, the last two speakers can split the time between them. We will move to the Front-Bench speeches at about 10.50 am.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this very timely debate on the three C’s: Christmas, Christianity and communities, between which there is a clear link. Clearly, without Christianity there would be no Christmas, and it is the celebration of our saviour’s birth that brings communities together.
It is fair to say that not everyone who will be celebrating next week would acknowledge the Christian faith or the real reason we celebrate, but this Christmas festival can still work its magic in bringing communities together. It is also the time of year when the retail trade makes much of its profit, and with the decline of our high streets that is very welcome. Sadly, many gifts are now bought online, but we must also recognise the many people who work in the online community and deliver all those parcels. In recent days, we have heard the news that Royal Mail may give precedence to parcels over cards and letters—I hope not.
My hon. Friend and others recounted various Christmas traditions. I am old enough to remember a time when there were not hundreds of TV channels, and squeezed in after the Queen’s speech was “Top of the Pops” and Billy Smart’s circus, and then the Monopoly board came out before Morecambe and Wise came on.
For our churches, Christmas is an opportunity when the pews are much fuller than usual. There are carol services, Christingle services, nativity plays and Christmas morning services, and midnight mass is part of the seasonal ritual for so many. Those, like me, who are regular worshippers will be there because it is a major Christian festival. For the Church, it is a great opportunity to proclaim the Christmas message and perhaps—just perhaps—touch the hearts of those who doubt, who used to believe or who were dragged along by members of the family. There is magic in the Christmas story.
In a strange sort of way, the Church of England speaks for mainstream middle England. Although it annoys me at regular intervals—I want to say, “Please concentrate on preaching the gospel”—it represents communities up and down our land that do so much to keep our society together. It is the Women’s Institute, the parochial church councils and parish councils. It runs food banks, the scouts, the guides and so much more, and all those things involve the Church and the community.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to “Home Alone”, which gives me an opportunity to say, “Not Home Alone”. Nina Stobart and her team in my constituency provide Not Home Alone events for people who are alone. They can go along to a gathering of about 80 or 90 people for Christmas dinner, donated by a generous local hotel. There are so many opportunities.
The Sunday before last, I attended a service of lessons and carols at St Peter’s church in the beautiful village of Ashby cum Fenby, in the south of my Cleethorpes constituency. It was pleasant and uplifting, and epitomised the three “C”s that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley included in the title for today’s debate: Christmas, Christianity and community.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his wise words. I am mindful of his words about what we will all perhaps be doing this coming Sunday or Monday, in relation to Christmas day. There are many places across the world where the opportunity to worship God will not be available, which we need to be ever mindful of. I brought up the example of Iraq in a business question last week in the Commons Chamber. In Iraq, Christians will not be able to worship God in their churches, because of persecution. That is an example of what happens across the world, when we have the opportunity to worship right here.
Martin Vickers
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Sadly, it is very much the case. He does so much work, along with the Prime Minister’s envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), to highlight persecution of Christians.
I return to the service in Ashby cum Fenby. A local businessman had donated Christmas trees, and various community groups and businesses had decorated the trees. The congregation were asked to vote for their favourite. I opted out of this, on the basis that there will be more losers than winners. It is not wise for the local Member of Parliament to get involved.
The Domesday book lists the manors of Ashby cum Fenby, together with a summary of their assets. In 1086, Ashby cum Fenby was in the hundred of Haverstoe in Lincolnshire. The village had three manors and 29 households, which is considered quite large for that time. St Peter’s church is grade II listed, and has an early English tower, aisle and belfry, a decorated chancel, and a perpendicular font. Beneath the tower are the remaining parts of a 13th-century rood screen. In the north aisle are monuments to Sir William Wray and his wife Frances, both from the 17th century, and to Frances’s sister, Susanna. The fact that they have plaques in the church suggests that they may well have been the elite of their community. Nevertheless, they were part of a village community that came together to worship, then as now. The Christian message had brought them together.
One of my favourite passages from the Bible—perhaps even my favourite—comes from the Christmas gospel: chapter 1 from St John. It begins with those immortal words,
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
For me, the most striking passage in that gospel is, as the authorised version says:
“He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew him not.”
That is sadly the case now, just as it was when St John wrote those words. How much better the world would be if we recognised that Emmanuel, God is with us. How the communities that we represent would be so much better if the Christian message reached deeper into them. Dame Maria, I wish you and all my colleagues a happy Christmas.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this debate, and opening with such a lovely and humble speech. I am pleased we are having this important debate. As a Christian myself, with a firm belief in loving my neighbour, I believe that the Christian message of love and hope is important for us all to reflect on, particularly at this time of year. Indeed, when we treat others as we would like to be treated, our society is a better place. I am proud that Darlington has a wide and varied Christian community. It serves our town in many ways, from providing food and support to those in need both near and far, to raising funds in its many activities for a wide range of organisations.
I particularly want to highlight the work of Darlington Town Mission, established by Quakers and Anglicans in 1838. To this day, it supports the elderly and vulnerable by tackling loneliness. Only last week, I was pleased to attend one of its carol services, bringing many people together to sing familiar carols. So varied is the Christian community in Darlington that I have not yet managed to visit every place of worship, but I have visited All Saints and Salutation Blackwell parish church; Darlington Baptist church; Elm Ridge Methodist church; Embrace church; Houghton on the Hill Methodist chapel; the Holy Family church; Holy Trinity parish church; King’s church; Northgate United Reformed church; Saint Augustine’s church; St. Cuthbert’s church; the parish church of St James the Great; St Matthew and St Luke; St Andrew’s church; St Columba’s church; Saint Teresa’s Roman Catholic church; St Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic church; St William and St Francis De Sales church; the Salvation Army; and St Anne’s church. Indeed, there are many more left to visit.
On Wednesday night, a Christingle service will take place at Geneva Road Cemetery chapel for the first time in many years. That redundant chapel has been taken over by the community and, over the last few months, they have been working tirelessly to restore, clean and prepare it for that festivity this year. I will be delighted to attend that.
During the pandemic, our communities came together to support one another, and that was clearly evident in our faith communities. Following my election, and seeing how important faith was in our town, I established an inter-faith forum that brings together not just the Christians of Darlington but our Quaker, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities to discuss the issues that our town faces. We continue to meet regularly, rotating our place of meeting. When we respect and embrace each other’s differences, those of different faiths and communities can live together in much greater harmony.
As a gay man, I know how difficult LGBT people of faith can find certain teachings in coming to terms with their religious belief and sexuality. However, in this season of peace and love, it was wonderful to see only last week the first blessings of a same-sex couple in an Anglican setting. Yesterday’s news from the Vatican of potential blessings for same-sex couples will be a joy to gay Catholics around the world. For me, my faith has taught me that we are all made in God’s image and there is value and worth in every one of us. It is for that reason that I have continued to campaign for the much-needed ban on conversion practices. Christianity is about loving our neighbour as they are. I will continue to press the Government to ban the abusive practices of conversion therapy, which simply bring darkness and misery to those subjected to them.
While I appreciate this debate is about Christianity and Christmas, and I have focused on Darlington’s thriving and vibrant Christian community, which I celebrate involving myself in, I want to highlight the other faiths in Darlington. Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all, in their own way, talk of peace, love, respect and the victory of light over darkness—Christmas messages to which people of faith and non-faith can all relate. I would also like to extend my Christmas wishes to colleagues across the House, all the staff who support us and the entire community of Darlington, regardless of their faith. May we all share in the joy of the angels, the eagerness of the shepherds, the perseverance of the wise men, the obedience of Mary and Joseph, and the peace of Jesus Christ at this time.
Finally, entering into the Christmas spirit, I would like to declare my Christmas list to the Minister. Drawing inspiration from Mariah Carey—don’t worry, I won’t sing—I don’t want a lot for Christmas, there are just a few things I need; I don’t care about the presents, underneath the Christmas tree; I just want some dentists in my town, and conversion therapy to be brought down; more than you can ever know; Minister make my wishes come true; that is all I want for Christmas.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Before I begin, I pay tribute to the late Alistair Darling, whose memorial service will be taking place not long from now in St Mary’s Episcopal cathedral in Edinburgh. He was a remarkable man who contributed much to Scottish politics. I echo the tributes that have been paid across party lines, and I send condolences and sympathies to his family.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing this debate. We often say, “Oh, this was a very timely debate”, but this literally could not be more timely—right at the end of term, just before we break for the Christmas recess. It is a pleasure to see so many Conservative Members in Westminster Hall. That is not always the case, for whatever reason. Last week, or two weeks ago, there was a debate on the anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights; regrettably, not a single Government Back Bencher was able to attend. It is important, however. We heard about the Christian roots of the human rights declaration and framework from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and it is great to see so many colleagues here today.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I was there but not for long. I was there briefly.
Patrick Grady
Of course—I beg forgiveness from the Father of the House, and indeed the chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and chair of the Procedure Committee, who also appeared towards the end of that debate; although, regrettably, there were no speeches. Anyway, in a spirit of consensus, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale spoke about the historical roots of Christianity. It is pretty unlikely that Jesus was born on 25 December in the year zero AD—not least because the Jewish and Roman calendars in operation 2,000 years ago were slightly different from the ones that we use today. Indeed, as I heard the hon. Gentleman say, most historical scholarship suggests that Jesus’s birth was shortly before what we now reckon was year zero and others suggest that the date was arrived at in the early Christian church as a co-option of pre-existing Roman or other pagan festivals associated with the winter solstice. That is not necessarily incorrect, or a diminution of the significance of the celebration in any way. There is a natural human instinct to celebrate the time of year when the dark days of winter begin to grow shorter and light appears earlier. As we heard in many of the contributions today, for Christians the coming of Christ is indeed the coming of the light of the world. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) quoted from the Gospel of St John: the introductory paragraph says that
“the light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it”.
The message that has come through in all the contributions today is that if we want to remember the reason for the season, if we want to put Christ back into Christmas, then Christians have to be that light that shines in the darkness. They have to be the example and the leaders in their communities. At this time of year hon. Members are right to draw attention to the role that churches and Christian communities play in supporting some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our societies—and other marginalised groups. I echo much of what the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said about LBGT Christians and the moves being made in different denominations to be more welcoming and supportive of them.
In Glasgow North, many of the Christian churches and other faith communities run important outreach programmes. St Gregory’s in the Wyndford area runs a food bank. Sadly, it sometimes struggles to cope with the level of demand. The Catholic church at the top of Maryhill road, the Immaculate Conception, and Maryhill parish church across the road, have a formalised co-operation agreement that has led to inspiring collaborations—not just for prayer and praise, but in charity fundraising, litter picking and the provision of warm welcome centres in collaboration with other churches along the Maryhill corridor, so that anyone who feels the need has somewhere warm they can go any day of the week, have something to eat and enjoy friendship and fellowship with others.
We have heard about similar examples and experiences from many other hon. Members, in their own communities. Of course, that is true of many other faith communities and organisations not connected with religious belief that provide similar outreach, especially at this time of year. I echo what the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said about thanking all those who will be working while the rest of us—and so that the rest of us—can enjoy a holiday or break during Christmas.
Glasgow North is the home of two cathedrals: the Episcopal Cathedral of St Mary the Virgin on Great Western Road, home to one of the finest choirs in Scotland and famed for its open and inclusive approach to ministry; and the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St Luke in Dowanhill, which is an important focal point for that community in Glasgow and the country as a whole. The city of Glasgow is also home to the historic Cathedral of St Mungo, which has a Presbyterian congregation that is, unusually, housed in a building called a cathedral; and the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Andrew, the seat of the Archbishop of Glasgow and successor of St Mungo, currently Archbishop William Nolan. We welcomed Archbishop Nolan, along with a number of his brother bishops, to Parliament a couple of weeks ago on an historic visit which coincided with the visit of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who comes to Westminster every year. That was a reflection of the St Margaret’s declaration which was signed by the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, outlining their shared beliefs,
“rooted in the Apostles, Christ’s first disciples”
and acknowledges a common heritage as Christians in Scotland. It also recognises the divisions of the past, apologises for the hurt and harm caused, seeks to make amends and commits to working toward greater unity. The Scottish Government collectively and the First Minister in particular have endorsed those steps towards greater collaboration and understanding between the Christian Churches and indeed between all faith communities.
In a previous role, I worked for the aid agency of the Catholic Church in Scotland—the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund—and we were very pleased to have the support of Humza Yousaf, who was then the Minister for External Affairs and International Development, and is now the First Minister of Scotland. He has spoken very warmly about the work of all the Christian aid agencies in Scotland.
However, it is difficult to reflect on Christmas, Christianity and communities at this time without considering the situation in the Holy Land. The hon. Member for Don Valley spoke about our favourite Christmas tunes. “O Little Town of Bethlehem” has always been one of my favourite Christmas carols. Bethlehem, or the House of Bread, is the place where Jesus was born, but in a stable—indeed most likely in a cave—where he was laid in a manger, because there was no room at the inn. It seems that in those days Bethlehem was full. Now, some argue that towns and cities in this country are full. The very first Christians were told that they were not welcome, and that the authorities and communities would not support them; they had to make do by themselves, somewhere else.
We have also heard from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Indeed, he and I were at the same meeting as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who is also here today, where we heard from the parish priest of Bethlehem and also from the Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem about the particular struggles of the Christian community in the Holy Land at this time of year, in this time of crisis, and the impact on their ability to worship. We also heard about the impact on others who want to come on pilgrimage.
That is why Christian leaders of all denominations, from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the patriarchs in Jerusalem itself, have called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides, to allow aid into Gaza, refugees out, the release of hostages and the negotiation of a peaceful settlement. That has been echoed in calls that I have heard from thousands of constituents, many of them motivated and encouraged to make such calls by their faith and their faith communities.
One constituent of mine in particular, Helen Minnis, who is the professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Glasgow, wrote to me to reflect on the “Coventry Carol”, which will be heard in many carol services up and down the country at this time of year. She said that it was recently listed as one of the top 20 carols, but she also said that she had discovered that it was about the massacre of the innocents. She said that a
“few hundred years ago when it was written, it was one of those small strident voices. I keep thinking of it just now because it tells how every mother of every child being killed must be feeling”.
The “Coventry Carol” goes:
“O sisters too, how may we do
For to preserve this day
This poor youngling for whom we sing,
‘Bye bye, lully, lullay?’
Herod the king, in his raging,
Chargèd he hath this day
His men of might in his own sight
All young children to slay.
That woe is me, poor child, for thee
And ever mourn and may
For thy parting neither say nor sing,
‘Bye bye, lully, lullay.’
Thy tiny child, bye-bye.”
I hope the Minister will reflect on that powerful testimony and will perhaps draw it to the attention of his colleagues in the Foreign Office.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, it was the massacre of the innocents 2,000 years ago that led the holy family to flee Bethlehem and make their way to Egypt—indeed, to what is quite possibly today Gaza—as refugees and asylum seekers. What would have happened if the Egyptian authorities had decided that they were not welcome there either and should be deported somewhere else or handed back to King Herod?
That is why it is right for Members to draw attention to the profound impact that Christianity has had on the whole of humanity and on our world today, but it is also why those of us who profess the Christian faith must try to live up to the enormous challenge that that represents. We must try, and fail, as we often do—certainly, I often do—but we must try and try again. That is why the hon. Member for Don Valley is right to say that we should ask for forgiveness at this time of year and, of course, I do the same.
In all of this discussion, it is vital to recognise the importance of freedom of religion and belief, which includes the right not to hold any religious belief and to disagree with the teachings and principles of organised religion. I recognise the work of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is also here today, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at the Bill that she has brought forward about making her position as a FORB envoy a statutory role.
The Government could also take some quite practical steps to support Christian Churches and other faith communities. Church buildings and other places of worship are a hugely important part of our heritage, but repairing and maintaining them attracts VAT, which is a huge challenge. Maybe that is something that the Minister would like to think about.
Also, the reality of the immigration environment means that it is now very difficult—indeed, it is often impossible—for Churches to bring in supply ministers to cover for their own clergy during the summer or in quieter months of the year. That leads to a reduction in the number of services, or even cancellation of services, and a lack of access to precisely the kinds of support and community cohesion that we have been celebrating throughout this debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that point and some others.
However, in the spirit of this debate, this time of year, and the Christian injunction to love our neighbours—even if they represent different political parties—and to do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves, let me conclude by wishing you, Dame Maria, all hon. Members here today and across the House, all of our staff and everyone who helps us in our jobs all the peace and joy of the season and a very happy Christmas.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Dame Maria. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing—as other hon. Members have said—this timely and important debate. I thank him for opening his contribution this morning by reminding us about the spirit of Christmas, and that we must not lose sight of why we celebrate Christmas—that is really important.
I also want to thank some other hon. Members for their contributions this morning. It is always a pleasure to serve with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). No Westminster Hall debate would be complete without his presence, so it was good to see him take his rightful place this morning. He reminded us of one of the most important commandments of loving God, but also loving our neighbour. We have to remember how we treat our fellow women and men and the importance of doing unto others as we would want them to do unto us.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made the really important point that we are free to celebrate regardless of which religion we belong to, but many people across the world do not have that luxury. I think back to the attack on St Theresa Catholic church in Nigeria—my country of origin—a few years ago, where I think 37 people were killed just for coming together to worship. We must continue to ensure that our Government calls for the freedom of religious belief and for people to be able to worship.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about the work of the different communities in his constituency. He spoke of charities and the many people who will be working over Christmas, including helping him to deliver his many Christmas cards. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke of how we as Christians celebrate our faith. It is really important as parliamentarians that we are proud of our faith. We are here to serve and respect all our constituents of faith or no faith, but we should be proud of our faith and not hide it. That is what God wants us to do, and that is the true meaning of us being Christians.
However, I cannot believe the hon. Member for St Ives does not enjoy nativity plays. This time last week I was at my six-year-old’s nativity play. It was a delight seeing the children dressed up, and there was delight on parents’ faces when they realised that their child was not the donkey. No matter how in tune the children are, they are all little angels, are they not? There is something good about nativity plays, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that and get into the spirit for next year.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) highlighted how the commercialisation of Christmas has crept in, and the fact that some of our high streets and online retailers will welcome the additional boost. I think for Christmas I would like the online retailers to pay their fair share of tax, in the same way that our shops on our high streets pay their business rates. That is a really good way that they could celebrate Christmas.
I must be honest, I cannot remember some of the TV programmes the hon. Member for Cleethorpes referenced —it may be that I am a little bit too young—but one of the programmes I always remember is “The Snowman” by Raymond Briggs. It is such a classic, and watching it is a tradition I started with my husband when we started having children. We can all remember the little boy’s face, and then the shock horror when he turned up the next morning and the snowman had melted and saw the carrot for his nose and the coal for his eyes. Every year my husband and I take our children to the Lyric Theatre in Hammersmith to watch an adaptation of the original “The Snowman” called “Father Christmas”.
I salute and commend the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for recognising and reiterating the point that so many LGBTQ+ people are of faith, and they are proud to be of faith. It is important we remember that, and that we welcome them and continue to embrace them. I hope the Minister has listened to him, and many others, on making sure we address the issue of conversion therapy.
Lastly, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) highlighted the light. With so much darkness in the world now, it is easy to forget that there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. As we all come together with our families to celebrate, it is easy for us to forget that many people will not be doing that. It is important that we hold on to that light and that we hold on to that truth, spirit and the fact that Christ lives in us in that light.
I want to touch on my own reflections on the meaning of Christmas, community and Christians. I am one of the Eucharistic readers at my own church, Our Lady of the Rosary Brixton, which I have attended all my life, so I know how important Christmas is. I will be reading on Christmas day next Monday at the 10 o’clock mass—if anyone is still in London, come to Brixton. For me, it is an important tradition that we start Christmas by going to mass on Christmas day before we eat, and I know that many Christians will start Christmas day that way.
It is a time when we remember the birth of Jesus and the light he brought to the world. It is a time when we celebrate our faith, but we also know that ours is a multi-faith, multicultural society and that Christmas represents different things to many different people across the country. Many people celebrate Christmas not just for Christian reasons, but for the happiness it brings. For some people, it is a time to relax and recharge over the difficult winter months. For some people, it is a time to come together and see family members and friends. For others, it is about giving and receiving gifts—that is quite high on my agenda because I have an eight year old and a six year old, but my children and I always look to give gifts to less fortunate children. It is important that we think about those young boys and girls who will not be opening Christmas gifts. It is important that we educate our children that it is not always about receiving; it is about giving. Those are the true values of Christmas for me.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady on her sensible and helpful contribution. Reaching out was in the press about four weeks ago, which I think we should try to do in our own constituencies. Many people will be alone this Christmas. A phone call may be one way of contributing, but the suggestion—this probably has more impact—was for people to visit a lonely or elderly person who is on their own. That is a Christmas message and something we should all try to do.
Florence Eshalomi
I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford; that is so important. Going back to an issue that many members highlighted, on Sunday last week, my church held the Christmas luncheon for the elderly. It was really good to see so many parishioners coming together, cooking, exchanging gifts and singing carols. It is important that those events are celebrated and that we continue to hold them.
Christmas means so many different things to different people, and that gives us the strength to continue to enjoy it today. It is also important that we look at how traditions have evolved over time. Christmas should not be confined to a certain era or style of celebration. The Christmas we will enjoy in 2023—not just here, but across the world—is a melting pot of centuries of change, reform, and adaptations in society. In the 17th century, Christmas survived laws introduced by English parliamentarians after the Puritan revolution to ban the celebration. Can you imagine banning Christmas? Father Christmas appeared in John Taylor’s pamphlet “The Vindication of Christmas”, which argued in favour of Christmas and celebrating Christmas. Later, the character of Father Christmas would be combined with depictions of Saint Nicholas and Sinterklaas give us the modern-day Santa Claus who delivers our presents or, as my eight year old almost broke it to my six year old, “You do know Santa Claus isn’t real?”
Florence Eshalomi
I know—shock horror. She said, “But Jesus is real” so I said, “I’ll take that instead.”
Several Members referenced the films and TV shows that have become commonplace in our lives. We have seen these figures adapted on our screens. New films capture the spirit of Christmas and have rapidly become traditional. Christmas today represents a combination of all these traditions in all our different communities.
I am proud to represent Vauxhall, and it has been great to see all our communities and constituents come together over the past few weeks to attend different carol services. I am proud that people across the world can come to celebrate their own Christmas traditions with their community as well as discover new ones. I am proud that the staff at St Thomas’ Hospital and all our emergency and public services will continue to work throughout Christmas to keep us safe. Come Christmas day, they will be saying, “Merry Christmas”, “Feliz Navidad”, “Buon Natale” or “kú dún” as my late mother would have said in Yoruba. It is important that we recognise all the traditions that come together for many people.
I am proud that our churches and communities will throw open their doors for the less fortunate and the lonely this Christmas. The hon. Member for Don Valley highlighted loneliness and suicide, and the sad reality is that many people will be lonely this Christmas. The Campaign to End Loneliness found that around 3.8 million people in Great Britain experience chronic loneliness. Sadly, that can be exacerbated at Christmastime, when society expects people to be with family or friends or at every Christmas social.
I think about the students and young people in Vauxhall who may have moved from around the world to be here. From the evidence of the “Tackling Loneliness” report, we know that loneliness is high at this time among 16 to 24-year-olds, even among those who do not normally feel lonely. Some of those young people may not be able to afford the flight home, to take time off work or to socialise with a wider group of friends or those who are going back home. It could be their first Christmas apart from their family, and chronic loneliness can be quite depressing. It is important to recognise that this Christmas will not be a joyful one for some people.
I also thank the hon. Member for Don Valley for highlighting the work done in our churches when they open their doors. I echo his sentiments about the churches tackling the issue of loneliness. This Christmas, it is important that we remember not only our family and friends, but the people who do not have families and friends. It could be the biggest gift to someone to invite them round for dinner or simply to pop over and make sure that they are not alone. When churches started opening up after covid, regular churchgoers recognised that some faces had not returned. After one mass, our parish priest said that if we recognised that people had not been to church, and if we were passing their door on the way home or to the shops, we should knock on it, check whether they were still okay and find out why they had not come back to church. It is important that we recognise that loneliness still exists for some people.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. It is time to start winding up now, please.
Florence Eshalomi
Finally, Dame Maria, the other reality is that this Christmas will be a hard time for some people. More families will not be able to put food on the table. Nearly 140,000 children will wake up with nowhere to call home. The one wish on my list for the Minister this Christmas is that he thinks about those children in temporary accommodation. I hope that, in 2024, the Government will address that issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for his sincere and faithful speech. It was a moving speech, if I may say so. It was very personal and spoke to the universality of the Christmas story and the route to help and rescue, and it was echoed in the very moving speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
You may wonder why I am replying to this debate, Dame Maria. I am the Government’s Minister for Faith, and it is a pleasure to take part. One or two colleagues commiserated with me on having to respond to a debate on the last day of term. Initially, I had some sympathy with that proposition, but it has been a privilege to hear the debate and it is an honour to respond to it.
Observant Members will notice that I have neither officials nor a typed speech with me, although one was offered. I wanted to speak from the heart in response to what I presumed would be the heartfelt speeches that we have heard. I particularly echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that, as Christians, we cannot sleep easy in our beds knowing that fellow Christians are persecuted around the world merely for exercising their right to worship in the way they see fit. Reference has been made to the dispiriting and terrifying situation unfolding in the middle east, and our thoughts and prayers must surely be for a rapidly peaceful solution to that horrible state of affairs.
Many colleagues have mentioned what many students of scripture refer to as the “golden rule”, which is referenced in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12. That is: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Surely that is the central message of our Christian faith, and it is a message for all of us, including those who take part in social media. It is the whole of the Christian message, set out in just a few short words. What better time to demonstrate that and make it manifest than during the Christmas season?
I echo the thanks that others have given to organisations such as the Lions Clubs International Foundation, the Salvation Army and the Rotary Foundation; they are an army of unthanked, unpaid and unnoticed community volunteers, both within church settings and without, who will do—and are doing—so much to support, help and engage with our communities. They engage with those who are feeling lonely, those who are feeling depressed and those who are feeling that they are outside the community boundaries; they do so much good, and they are the very manifestation of what it is to be a Christian.
Simon Hoare
Would the hon. Lady forgive me?
As we approach the shortest day of the year, our churches throw open their doors to illuminate our communities with that bright Christmas light, illuminating our way in the dark. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned the Darlington Town Mission and a raft of other local places of worship and voluntary groups. From the Front Bench, I thank them all for the work that they do, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.
If I may, my one sharp note is to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is now absent. He made his party political point and fled. Maybe he had also been warned, in a dream, that it was wise to do so, because his scriptural knowledge leaves a little to be desired. One could create an argument that the holy family were refugees fleeing into Egypt, but the hon. Member said that he wondered how the three wise men would have found them. Well, Joseph was, of course, returning to his home town; he had every right to be in Bethlehem and was returning for the census. Maybe a resolution for the hon. Member for Glasgow East would be, first, to learn a little bit more about parliamentary etiquette and stay to listen to the whole debate, and secondly, to have a little flick through the Bible during the Christmas recess so that he can get his facts right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) spoke movingly about his faith and about the church groups in his constituency. He was right to remind us—this is the salient point that stuck out in his speech—of the danger of Members of Parliament judging constituents’ competitions. I well recall the fallout when, in a moment of high prissiness, I excluded a fruit bread from a cake competition. His advice not to judge is wise advice indeed.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley in what I thought was a very moving speech, in which he spoke about how he found the Christian message and about the huge turnaround that it delivered for him. I think that the House should be grateful to him for speaking about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is to again be warmly congratulated on his inter-faith work; I know that many colleagues do such work in their constituencies. Is there not a tendency for each religious group to claim some moral superiority and something a little bit different that sets them apart? As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned, anybody who engages in inter-faith discussions can only come away enriched and encouraged by the commonality of view that those other faiths seem to have, at their fundamental hearts—that key message of doing unto others as one would have done unto oneself.
I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington for reminding us of the challenges, and the campaigns to remove the impediments of what it is to be gay and a person of faith. He spoke movingly and with great sincerity. It always strikes me that we should remind ourselves, as many hon. Members have in their speeches this morning, that we are mere mortals in this great global story of ours and should never presume, although of course too many do, that we are able to claim with absolute clarity that we know what is in God’s mind. All that is in God’s mind is love and we would do well to remember that.
Many people have spoken about family traditions that help augment and make the Christian story of Christmas special. I might be abusing my position— I don’t know—but I will take full advantage and discuss two in the Hoare family. First, we have to watch “Elf”. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that anything with Jimmy Stewart in is always worth watching, such as “It’s a Wonderful Life”, but there are other films. “Elf” should be recommended. My daughters get very annoyed with me—we have watched it so often that I find myself reading out huge chunks of the script. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is nodding at that.
My daughters tested me. They challenged me to see whether I could read into the record
“You sit on a throne of lies.”
Well, there we are. I have just done so. My quid pro quo is that yet again Daddy will make everyone sit down and listen to him recite in his most proper native Welsh tone that great epistle to Christmas, “A Child’s Christmas in Wales” by Dylan Thomas. If Members have not read it, I commend it to them.
I also like to provide one little new fact about Christmas, which the House might find of use to repeat in quiet moments or to dispel temper and angst around the Christmas lunch table. Somebody mentioned the Puritans and the banning of Christmas. The tradition of Christmas stockings can be read in full in the Christmas bumper edition of Country Life; other periodicals are, I am told, available. The tradition derives from a poor father who had three daughters—I know the feeling as the father of three daughters—who could not create the dowry for their weddings and was worried that they would be sold into servitude or whatever. Anyway, St Nicholas threw three bags of golden coins down the chimney. They landed in the toes of the stockings of the three girls, and there is our history: a 17th-century Dutch tradition of Christmas stockings. We still put oranges and tangerines in the feet of stockings in remembrance of that.
The problem with an off-the-cuff speech penned in response to what people have said is that undoubtedly I have missed some of the points made, for which I apologise. It also means I have no grand peroration. All I can do is thank those who have taken part and wish everybody a peaceful and joyful Christmas.
Nick Fletcher
I thank everyone for turning up today. A few people have tried to make this debate a little difficult for me, but in the spirit of Christmas I will rise above it and forgive them for their little digs. One thing that we have heard a few times is:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I would have them tell me the truth. If we do that in this place, we will do well. I read a quote the other day that said:
“When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”
I will not be a politician who does that. I will be a politician who tells the truth. I hope that we can all take that into the new year and be fantastic representatives for this great nation. I wish everyone a very merry Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Christmas, Christianity and communities.
Sustainable Farming Initiative
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of transitioning to the Sustainable Farming Initiative.
It is an ongoing pleasure to continue serving under your guidance this morning, Dame Maria. I welcome hon. Members to their seats and the Minister to his. I start by wishing everyone merry Christmas, in the spirit of the debate we have just had.
The sustainable farming incentive is a cornerstone of the Government’s environmental land management schemes. The hallmark of SFI in particular, and ELMS in general, is that public money should support our farmers for delivering public goods. The principles underlying that transition are supported by farmers across the country, by environmental groups and, for what it is worth, by me. The point of this debate is to issue a plea to the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that they start listening to farmers and acknowledge the damage they are doing to farmers, food production and our environment by the way they are managing the transition from the old scheme to the new.
The Conservative manifesto promised £2.4 billion to English farming, yet in the past year the Government spent only £2.23 billion on various schemes and, crucially, only £1.956 billion of that went into farming. The Government have, therefore, broken their promise to farmers to the tune of £444 million last year and, with the phasing out of the basic payment scheme stepping up, they are set to break their promise to farmers to an even greater degree next year.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Recent figures show a remarkably low uptake of the sustainable farming incentive. Does my hon. Friend agree that it simply does not have enough incentive for farmers to join?
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; I will come to that in a little while, because I think that does explain a lot of why that underspend has happened. It is easy to see how it has happened; it is not a mystery. It is down to two things: first, the Conservative Government have been very good at phasing out the old BPS, and secondly, they have been relentlessly incompetent at bringing in the new schemes, including for the reason that my hon. Friend set out.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures show that around £460 million has been removed from farmers’ pockets in the form of the BPS phase-out, which eclipses the increase in environmental payments of around £155 million. Much of that has not even gone to farmers. It has instead found its way into the very deep pockets of large landowners, including new entrant corporate landowners, looking to do a bit of greenwashing at the taxpayer’s expense.
In the spring of 2021, the Government promised to spend £275 million on SFI schemes in the 2022-23 financial year. Yet, in reality, excluding the pilots, they spent literally nothing—zero pounds, zero pence. This year, the Government plan to spend just shy of £290 million on SFIs. One question for the Minister is: how much of that money will actually go to farmers in this current financial year?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understand clearly what the hon. Gentleman is saying but I would respectfully like to put forward a suggestion. There are examples where the schemes have done good. For instance, there are some wonderful farm shops in my constituency, such as Corries butcher’s, a good scheme set up some years ago, and McKee’s farm shop. For those farmers who can afford additional farm shops, this is a wonderful way to diversify in an effort to boost income and ensure functioning sustainability. Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think he does—that small financial incentives could be a way to support our local farmers to diversify, and that could be introduced through the sustainable farming incentive? In other words, we can all gain.
Tim Farron
I go back to what I said at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are clear advantages in the scheme, and we support its principle. The problem is that they are outweighed across the piece by the negatives.
What does the botching of the transition mean for individual farmers? Last week, I met a group of farmers in north Westmorland at Ormside near Appleby. One told me that SFI would replace just 7% or 8% of what he is losing in basic payment. Another explained that if he maximised everything in his mid-tier stewardship scheme and got into all the available SFI options, he would replace only 60% of what he received through BPS. The others in the room looked at him with some envy: he was the least badly affected.
Last month, I met a group of farmers in South Westmorland, in Old Hutton near Kendal. One told me that the loss of farm income meant that he had to increase the size of his flock to make ends meet. He knew that in making that choice he was undoing the good environmental work that he and his family had been doing for years, but he could see no other way to keep afloat. That is a reminder that the Government’s handling of these payments means that they are often delivering precisely the opposite of what they intended.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
One issue that farmers in my constituency have raised is that existing schemes to help the environment are not eligible under the sustainable farm incentive, so farmers are incentivised to rip those schemes out, undoing good work that they have done and damaging the environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that a tweak to the payments to recognise good work that has already been done would be welcome?
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend makes a really good point, and that also happens in my constituency. Accidentally, the Government are acting in a counterproductive way when it comes to the environment.
Others at that meeting in South Westmorland near Kendal told me that they are putting off investing in capital equipment because the loss of BPS and the lack of replacement income means that they do not have the cash flow to invest in a long-overdue new dairy parlour, a covered slurry tank or other things that would increase productivity and improve environmental outcomes. The Minister will say that many grants are available to farmers to help them in that respect, and in some cases they absolutely can, but not if contractors need to be paid up front as DEFRA expects farmers to demonstrate that they have the money in the bank to do that before releasing those grants.
DEFRA’s own figures show that upland livestock farmers have lost 41% of their income during this Parliament, and that lowland livestock farmers have lost 44%. One famer near Keswick told me, tongue in cheek, that he had calculated that the fines he would receive for committing a string of pretty terrible crimes would not amount to what he lost in farm income thanks to this Government.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Does he agree that financially aware farms help make financially secure farms, which build food security for the country?
Tim Farron
Absolutely. If we do not give people stability of income and certainty, how can we expect them to provide the food and the environmental gains that we need?
I challenge the Minister to come up with any industry that has been penalised as badly by the Government over the past four years as our farmers. To be fair, I do not think the Government actually intended to do so much harm to farming and farmers. I do not believe they sat down and decided to break their promise to farmers and make a net cut of more than a sixth in farm spending, but those cuts have happened all the same because of flaws built into the system either by accident or by design, which have led to predictable and ever-increasing sums of money being taken out of farming, while smaller and less predictable amounts have been introduced.
Let me set out some of the flaws, in the hope that the Minister will address them. First, the system has built-in perverse incentives, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, which mean that farmers at the forefront of environmental work are penalised. Farmers who are in an existing higher level stewardship or uplands entry level stewardship scheme lose their BPS—by the end of this month, they will have lost between 35% and 50%—yet they cannot fully access SFI. In other words, farmers already doing good environmental work can only lose income from this process. That is especially so in the Lake district, the Cartmel peninsula, the dales and the Eden valley—some of our most treasured and picturesque landscapes. In upland areas, basic payments typically make up 60% of financial support. Farmers in those beautiful places, which are so essential to our heritage, our environment and our tourism economy are stuck. They are already in stewardship schemes, but their BPS is being removed and they cannot meaningfully access SFI.
The Lake district is a world heritage site. If the landscape changes dramatically for the worse in the next few years because of the Government’s failure to understand the impact of their error, that world heritage site status is at risk, and its loss would cause huge damage to our vital hospitality and tourism economy in Cumbria, which serves 20 million visitors a year and sustains 60,000 jobs.
The Government’s failure to allow farmers to stack schemes to deliver more for nature is foolish and bureaucratic, and it means that they were always going to be taking more away from farmers than they could ever give back.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I am not sure whether things are just different in North Devon, but my farmers seem to be able to stack their schemes. I was asked to come here today by a lovely lady called Debbs Harding, who is part of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, to fully endorse this programme. Yes, there is more to be done—there is always more to be done. However, I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the schemes and are not just going back to Brexit, which has been their previous position.
Tim Farron
On the point that SFI can add value, the reality is that, with the exception of moorland options, there is no reason for anybody in a stewardship scheme to add to what they currently lose. My colleague from Appleby, who said he can only replace 7% of what he loses from BPS, is typical of many people. There are exceptions, of course, and I could name people who have done well out of it. Yet when we have taken out the best part of half a billion and put in £155 million to replace it, it stands to reason that the average farmer in North Devon and everywhere else is worse off.
I try to give the Government some credit by saying that this is incompetence and not malice. They did not mean to break their promise; they have just botched the transition and broken it by accident. However, if the Minister will not address the flaw that prevents farmers in stewardship schemes from meaningfully accessing SFI, we can only conclude that the betrayal of England’s farmers is not accidental after all, but deliberate. Will he look at the matter urgently, so that we do not lose farmers pushed to the brink due to the Government’s obvious failure?
Another flaw in the Government’s approach to the new scheme is that they keep chopping and changing. The Rural Payments Agency cannot keep up with the constant flux, as the Government reinvent SFI every few months. The platform for delivery is struggling to keep pace. For example, the Government’s latest edict is that everyone who began an SFI application in September must have completed it by 31 December. If they have not completed and submitted it by then, all their details will be wiped and they will have to go back to square one and start again. To add to that, the Government’s insistence on drip-feeding SFI options to farmers means that many have not applied because they are worried that if they do, a better new option may be revealed soon after.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about SFI options. One thing I have picked up from the farmers in mid and east Devon I represent is that they are concerned about how the options are profligate. At the beginning of this year, more than 100 options for both schemes were new or were being reviewed. I am hearing from farmers in my corner of Devon that they want greater simplicity in the SFI.
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hear across Westmorland and beyond. All that puts people off applying for new schemes because under DEFRA’s rules, farmers can only change or upgrade options once a year, on the anniversary of their entry into the scheme. As a result, hundreds of farms in Westmorland are hanging on. They are unwilling to apply for the latest option because they cannot be sure that it will not be superseded a month later, leaving them locked into an inferior scheme.
I mentioned earlier the concerns expressed to me by farmers in Westmorland about capital schemes. That is a typical concern in landscapes with sites of special scientific interest, especially in the lakes and the dales. SFI moorland payments are higher than others, which is welcome, but farmers cannot get into that option without significant capital spending. For instance, farmers —or more likely a group of farmers—who farm on a common might typically need to spend a quarter of a million pounds on peatland restoration, sorting out leaky dams and slowing the flow of rivers and becks before they can qualify. Yet farmers—many of whose incomes in reality amount to less than half the national minimum wage—do not have a quarter of a million pounds sitting in the bank to pay up front for that work.
The Minister will say that those farmers could get the money back through the grant schemes, but if they do not have the money up front to defray the costs, they are effectively barred from entering. What are the answers here? We could start with the Government revising their payment rates. If we value these public goods—biodiversity, access, carbon sequestration, flood prevention, and so on—we should pay for them accordingly. That is why the Liberal Democrats have committed an extra £1 billion in UK agricultural payments to protect our environment and support farmers. Increasing the payment rates for SFI would draw more people in, and increasing payment rates for stewardship schemes would help too. The payment rates for HLS and UELS are £60 per hectare for commons and £50 per hectare for non-commons. Those rates have not been changed since 2010, so will the Minister address that?
The Government could then get rid of the barriers in the application process, such as counterproductive cut-off points that prevent farmers in stewardship schemes from replacing lost BPS income with SFI options. Next, the Government could do a really radical thing and actually decide on a policy and then stick to it. The Government constantly changing their mind is damaging the ability of the RPA and Natural England to deliver these schemes. The Minister might also consider whether three-year SFI agreements are long enough. Should there in addition be 10-year options, to at least give farmers the choice of a longer, more stable scheme? That would give them the security and stability they need.
On capital grants, the Government could ensure that the lack of cash flow—exacerbated by the withdrawal of BPS—does not prevent farmers from securing capital funding. The transition is a stressful and complicated business for farmers, as well as a costly one. Will the Minister invest more in face-to-face, on-farm, trusted advice to support people as they make these significant business changes? Will he ensure that Natural England does not habitually block access to new schemes to those in SSSIs by throwing hurdles in their way—as we saw on Dartmoor—and instead offers a helping hand to lead farmers into those schemes?
I restate that public money for public goods is the right principle to support farming, but the transition to the new scheme is causing hardship across Cumbria and across rural England as a whole. We need to remember that farmers are food producers first and foremost. If we do not understand that, we run the risk of damaging our food security even further. Already, the UK is only 55% self-sufficient in food. The Government’s approach will mean fewer farmers and less food production. Not only does that further undermine our ability to feed ourselves, it also displaces the environmental damage overseas. It racks up food miles and makes us reliant on food sourced from commodity markets, which will impact on and increase food prices for some of the poorest people in the world. There is a clear moral imperative for Britain to back its farmers so that Britain can feed itself.
Farmers are also our best hope in securing environmental gain. Of England’s land, 70% is agricultural. If we push farmers to the brink, who will deliver our environmental policies? Let us be dead clear: pushing farmers into bankruptcy is bad for the environment. The greenest thing the Government can do is to keep farmers farming, yet by botching the transition they are doing the opposite. [Interruption.] I will draw my remarks to a close soon— I apologise.
I can think of farmers who are essentially staring into the abyss. For example, people in their 60s who are tenants or else owners of a family farm. They are the fifth or sixth generation to run that farm. It is a beautiful place, but at times it is bleak, and it is always isolated. Life can be lonely.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Member wind up, please?
Tim Farron
I will. I was a bit too generous—I apologise.
That farmer is working 90 hours a week, with no headspace to deal with the flip-flopping and chopping and changing of the new schemes. They see their BPS disappearing, with nothing to fill its place. There they are, on the farm that their great-great-grandparents farmed before them, and all they can see is that they look increasingly like being the one who will lose the family farm. It will all end with them. Can we imagine what that does to someone, to their state of mind, and to their business and personal choices? What a burden we place on the farmers who feed us and care for our landscape and our environment, all because the Government will not face up to the reality that the transition is bleeding a torrent of cash from our farms, while injecting merely a trickle.
My final word is this. A farmer from near Kirkby, Stephen, who works with farmers on common land, said this the other day:
“I spoke with all the graziers over the weekend. Desperate and broken would probably describe the mood. A few years ago, I scanned a customer’s sheep, and six days later he killed himself. His friend and neighbour to this day cannot forgive himself for missing the signs, as did I”.
I am proud of our farmers and of the work they do to feed us, care for our environment, tackle climate change and maintain our breathtaking landscapes. I plead with the Minister to take note and to urgently make changes to SFI and to the whole transition, so that we do not irreparably damage people, businesses and our land, just because we did not listen to our farmers.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for calling this important debate. I must confess, I am slightly confused by his request. He spent nearly 20 minutes flip-flopping between telling us not to constantly keep changing, and telling us to change the system to make it more acceptable to farmers. I am not quite sure which he wants us to do.
Let me start by saying that this whole debate around the current transition is thought-provoking. The discussion around the sustainable farming incentive has been interesting. It is a scheme that will pave the way for both the production of food and the preservation of nature—that is what we want to try to achieve.
British farmers are the life and soul of our rural communities. They have continued to put food on our tables despite unprecedented challenges, such as the rising costs of production following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If we couple that with the impact of the covid pandemic and the looming impact of climate change, the industry has shown resilience and adaptability in responding to all those challenges and continuing to keep us fed as a nation.
The Government’s aim with SFI is to make things fairer and better for our farmers, whether that be through our new approach to regulation, finding areas where we can make the system itself work better for our producers, or the policies that we introduce. The SFI scheme does just that. It aims to support the environment and food production, and it rewards farmers for practices that will help to produce food sustainably and protect the environment at the same time, while also providing them a reliable income for doing so. That is because we know that food production and nature preservation go hand in hand. Those practices will help to look after farms in the short and long term by improving soil health or mitigating the impact of extreme weather.
The aim is for the scheme to be flexible for farmers in both the actions that they can take and the land on which they farm. There is no minimum or maximum area of land that farmers can enter into the scheme: anyone who applies and is eligible will get an agreement, with the choice to add more land and actions to the agreement each year. That goes to the core of the argument about the number of available measures. We want to create a menu from which farmers can choose and that they can stack on their farms. Rather than prescribing what they must do, they should have a menu from which to choose what works best for their farm and to their advantage. That is helping those farmers to make their businesses more sustainable.
As we set out in the autumn, after listening to the concerns of farmers, we ensured that farmers who had a live agreement by the end of this year would receive an accelerated payment for the first month. We have already paid out £7.89 million to more than 2,000 farmers in early SFI payments, which will help with their cash flow, making the scheme work for farm businesses. That is what SFI is about. This year the sustainable farming incentive was expanded, and we made it more flexible based on the feedback we received from farmers. We introduced a further 19 actions to SFI. We had previously joined actions into groups, but farmers said that making them into a group when they had to deliver on all the standards was too inflexible. We now have a total of 23 separate actions that farmers can pick and mix from, including actions relating to soil health, hedgerow management, providing food and habitats for wildlife and managing pests and nutrients, giving farmers the flexibility to do what is best for their business.
For upland farmers who are tenants, which I know the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is interested in, we have made SFI much more accessible through shorter agreement lengths, increased flexibility to leave without penalty if they lose management control of the land that they farm and no requirement for landlord consent. Those farming on commons are also eligible for SFI. We have introduced supplementary payments for those farming on commons with others. The flexibility, the broad offer and the importance of steady, regular income that farmers can count on are some of the reasons that SFI has already received record interest from farmers around the country. Before it opened, we received expressions of interest from more than 15,000 farmers, across all types of farm sizes, and all of them have been invited to apply. Nearly 5,000 applications have been submitted so far, and more than 2,000 farmers have already started SFI this year.
Looking to the future, we need to ensure that the agricultural transition works for all farmers, which is why we are supporting them through the change, from commoners to small family farms on our uplands. We are working on additional actions for upland farmers in moorlands, which we will introduce into SFI in 2024. In everything that we do, our aim is to back a profitable and sustainable food and farming sector, now and for future generations. The improved SFI offer is at the heart of that, with record interest from farmers around the country. This is part of our range of schemes for farmers. We are also carrying on with the countryside stewardship scheme, which more than 30,000 are already involved with, and we are making that work better, bringing more flexibility in order for higher level stewardship holders to have CS or SFI agreements in addition to their existing HLS one.
Overall, we have almost doubled the number of farmers in our environmental schemes this year, and we have put our foot to the floor to help more farmers as we move ahead. We will continue to support those farmers. We will continue to demonstrate flexibility. We will continue to listen to their views and support them on this journey. That will be the model on which we operate. I encourage farmers to embrace these new schemes and to get involved. We will listen and we will shape them as we move forward. May I finish, Dame Maria, by wishing everybody a merry Christmas and a sustainable and profitable future in the farming sector?
Question put and agreed to.
Service Accommodation
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the adequacy of service accommodation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela, not least because that means that I will not have at least one razor-sharp intervention where I would be blushing as I try to react in this, my maiden Westminster Hall debate. I am grateful to everyone who has taken the time to be here and that both the Minister and the shadow Minister are in their places. I reassure everyone that I do not intend to speak at great length because I am aware that colleagues also wish to contribute. I want to ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to speak on the issue of how service accommodation affects their constituents at the moment.
I begin by putting on record my heartfelt thanks to everyone who serves in our armed forces. They work tirelessly to keep our nation safe. I pay tribute to them and their families for the selfless sacrifice that they make on our behalf every day. With friends and families who serve and have served, I know all too well the pride that they take in the opportunity to serve our country and the seriousness with which they take their duties.
I am incredibly grateful to the many people in the services and their family members who have taken the time over the past few weeks and months to speak to me about forces accommodation, and to those who have taken the time to fill out the questionnaire prepared by the House before this debate. I know that this is not always an issue that feels particularly comfortable or easy to speak up on, and that it is not always felt to be the done thing. But it is so important that everyone in this place understands the issues that people in service accommodation face so that those can adequately be tackled. I am grateful to everyone who has taken the time to assist in preparing for today’s debate.
I am incredibly proud to stand here representing Mid Bedfordshire, which is home to not one but two forces bases, at Chicksands and Henlow. A great pleasure of my role has been getting out and about to speak to members of the armed forces community across Mid Bedfordshire—to their families, their friends and even existing servicemen. Regardless of whom I speak to, one thing is clear: the resolute pride they all feel in the opportunity to serve and their absolute commitment to doing their utmost to keep us all safe at home and abroad.
I think colleagues will share my sentiment that anyone who makes the decision to put on a uniform and step forward to serve should expect to live in dignity in decent housing, where they and their family can feel truly at home. For the families of loved ones living with our servicemen and women, moving into service accommodation is not simply a case of stepping into a new building. It often means upping sticks, moving to a completely unfamiliar place, sending children to new schools and getting their whole family used to a completely new environment. For service personnel, it can be so much more. Service duty can mean months spent away from home, family and friends, in tough and arduous settings that can test the physical and mental endurance of even the most resolute members of our services. After going through all that, the least we should be able to say to them and their families is that the state of their accommodation should not be a mental endurance test for them. Sadly, that is not currently the case for all of them.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech in his first, and hopefully not his last, Westminster Hall debate. Over the last couple of years, I have been fortunate enough to go to many different bases across the country to speak to servicemen and women. The overall concern that every single one has is the accommodation. I have seen some of that at first hand, and issues include mould and cracks in the walls. Why does he think that that main part of service life has been treated so poorly for so long?
Alistair Strathern
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work over many years to highlight this issue, and to speak to our servicemen to properly understand the challenges that they face in their accommodation. To me, it is clearly unacceptable to allow the situation to continue. We can all have an argument today about where we think the root cause of this issue lies. There is a fair amount of accountability to be had, but this has dragged over the last decade. I hope no one on either side of the House will feel that we can allow the situation to continue any longer. I look forward to discussing what we can all do in this House to ensure that it does not.
Few will forget the challenges we saw last winter. Service accommodation hit crisis point. Images flooded social media of decrepit flats, mould, flooding and people with water dripping through their ceiling in the midst of a freezing winter. Repairs had stagnated, and our armed forces personnel had been forced to take to social media to share their experiences, because they had lost faith that any other means of getting through was having an impact. Sadly, the few channels available to them were simply not working. They were not able to report with confidence that an issue would be tackled, or, once reported, followed up on with the desired urgency. Many had to wait hours on end on the Pinnacle helpline, if they got through at all, to be able to raise an issue. Even then, they could not have confidence that it would be managed with the urgency required.
It was good for all of us across the House to hear an acknowledgement from the Government that standards have fallen below what should be expected for our brave service personnel and their families, and a commitment from the then Defence Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). He said that it was “unconscionable” that people were moving into properties with mould, and that going forward, there would be a
“clear assurance from DIO that that will not happen again.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 145.]
Sadly, however, from speaking to servicemen and women in my constituency and across the country, we know that, year on year, the problems have remained: broken boilers, water pouring into homes, mould and an endless wait for basic repairs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Having listened to my hon. Friend on the doorsteps in Mid Bedfordshire, I acknowledge that he is standing up for the issues that were raised now he is in this place. Does he agree that the litany of repairs and problems with housing have had a significant detrimental impact on service personnel’s morale? I am talking about not only those who have to live in that accommodation, but those serving elsewhere whose families remain in houses that are just not fit to live in.
Alistair Strathern
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. I know that she has been resolute in standing up not just for our service personnel, but for veterans in her previous job on the shadow Front Bench, and that she will continue to advocate for them passionately in her new roles. It is so important that we take this issue seriously. From speaking to servicemen and women and hearing from them through the survey that was carried out, it is so clear that allowing the issue to persist has a detrimental impact on their morale, their retention, and their sense of worth and value—something that should never be called into question for those who are putting themselves on the line on our behalf.
It is shameful that we have got to this point. Many will have seen the quotes from the survey that was carried out before today’s debate, and they should chill all of us. One mother reporting issues in her home told a story about her two-year-old daughter, who had
“been suffering from repeated chest infections and coughs”.
They had been getting worse month after month, exacerbated by the persistent, untreated mould in their home. Another person reported that the mould had affected their children’s health to the point where one of them had to be hospitalised with breathing difficulties. Those situations should shame us all. Living with a loved one in active service is tough enough. Our service families should not have the added anxiety of having to worry about the health impact that their home could be having on them and their loved ones.
Another key issue raised throughout the survey and throughout my conversations has been the impact of inadequate accommodation on morale, as my hon. Friend pointed out. It has driven personnel to despair and, in some cases, out of the service they had loved to serve. Stephen, who has served for 20 years in the armed forces, reported in the survey a “consistent” and constant
“erosion in the standard of family service accommodation”
over recent years.
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. Friend for kindly giving way a second time. The stats speak for themselves. Roughly one in three of our armed forces personnel are living in the poorest rated military accommodation, with a staggering 1,378 living in rental accommodation so poor that they do not have to pay any rent. That is a damning indictment of what is happening for, as my hon. Friend described it, our brave soldiers doing the right thing for our country. Does he not agree that we have been speaking about this for far too long, and that we need to change and address it now?
Alistair Strathern
I know my hon. Friend has been campaigning passionately on that issue, and I wholeheartedly agree. I will touch on the damning statistics shortly. The brutal sadness is that in my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, the figures are even worse. It is clearly time for words to come to an end and for action to follow. I hope that, in response to my questions at the end of my speech, the Minister will clarify when action will be forthcoming.
Stephen and his family have been pushed to the limit and they want to know why they are being penalised. Service personnel are expected to live and nurture their families in substandard accommodation, and to continue serving at a time when they do not feel that they are being valued. Accommodation should be a safe haven for service personnel and their families to rest, recuperate and recharge, but as Stephen and many others have reported, that is simply not the reality at the moment.
I wish to share one further heartbreaking story from a serving soldier who contacted my office. He asked to remain anonymous. On one occasion while staying in single living accommodation, he had to put up with no running water for a number of weeks. Throughout that period, he and his regiment were expected to maintain a level of hygiene as part of the exercises, but that was impossible without running water. Ultimately, they had no choice but to fork out for bottled water out of their own pockets and to heat it up to bathe. We are surely better than that indignity.
The soldier told my office of the broken nights he spent in a sleeping bag due to a broken boiler in the accommodation and a lack of heating in the bedrooms. I am sad to say that he spoke about the persistent experience of human faeces rising up time and again in an officer’s sink. I am sure we would all agree that this is a disgrace. It is time that we collectively renew our efforts to stamp out these problems once and for all.
Sadly, as those anecdotes have illuminated, and as colleagues’ testimony has shown, the issue is widespread. Across the country, more than 25,000 personnel—one in three—are living in grade 4 single living accommodation. Shockingly, the Government’s data shows that in my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, the number rises to 64% across the whole county—about double the national average. That cannot be good enough and it should bring shame on all of us. It certainly brings shame on me, as an MP entrusted to represent those servicemen and women, that too many of them—nearly two thirds—are currently residing in the worst-graded accommodation. We cannot allow that to continue. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined his plans to address it and set out how many service personnel in Bedfordshire he expects to remain in grade 4 accommodation by the end of next year.
Further analysis published last week found that mouldy military homes have increased by nearly 40%. After everything that happened last year, and the pledge to prepare for winter this year, the situation is sadly still getting worse. According to Ministry of Defence estimates, about 700 families promised mitigation work will not benefit from its completion until April 2024 at the earliest. That is far too long to wait, given the issues that we are talking about.
The standard of service accommodation has blatantly been neglected for too long, and it is sadly beginning to decline even further for some of the families I have been speaking to. Not enough has changed over the last 13 years. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an update on the measures that he and his Department will take to ensure that contractors finally fulfil their duty to my families in Mid Bedfordshire. How many extra staff members have been recruited to ensure that emergency helplines are fully staffed this winter and to guarantee to all service personnel that there will be a response if they need one? How many fines have been handed out to contractors that have missed an emergency appointment to ensure that we are properly holding them to account? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that no serviceman or woman is forced out of their home over Christmas due to maintenance issues? How many service properties in Bedfordshire are still awaiting mitigation work for damp and mould this Christmas? Will the Minister give those families clarity about when the issue will be tackled?
It is paramount that those questions are answered. Colleagues from across the House will urge the Minister to act with the urgency that the situation requires. Those who step forward and serve deserve better. I know Members on both sides of the House would agree with that sentiment, but it is time for all of us, including the Minister, to commit to urgently finding a remedy to these problems.
I am proud that Labour has launched a campaign, “Homes Fit for Heroes”, to highlight some of the challenges and ensure that we remain absolutely, resolutely committed to addressing them if we are lucky enough to be in government. Labour will legislate to establish an armed forces commissioner who can act as a strong, independent voice for service personnel and their families and ensure that service accommodation finally feels like a priority for those who live in it. However, they should not have to wait for a change in Government to bring that about—that is why I am really happy to be having this debate.
I am glad that Members from across the House have joined us here to discuss this issue, which is really important to me, my constituents, my friends, my family and, most importantly, the brave men and women who serve this country. I look forward to discussing it more as the debate goes on.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) not only on his election, but on his first Westminster Hall debate. This is a really important topic and he has outlined the issues in an enormous amount of detail and very eloquently, and we are all grateful to him for that.
I have been campaigning on the issue of military accommodation since this time last year. North Shropshire is proud to be home to RAF Shawbury and the Clive barracks at Tern Hill. It came to light last year that there were two issues, which I will deal with in turn. The first is around the service maintenance contract—the way in which problems reported by families and individuals living in the accommodation are dealt with. The second is about the overall quality of the stock and how that can be addressed, because I think I am right in saying that we are struggling to maintain adequately a poor and deteriorating stock of housing.
I will start with the service maintenance contract. This time last year, it became evident that there was a huge problem with the recently renegotiated and reimplemented service maintenance contract. Initially, when a family had a problem with their accommodation, they contacted a single contractor—I think at the time that was Amey—which was responsible for handling that call and sending out a contractor to fix the problem, whether that was crows falling down the chimney, a broken boiler or whatever the problem might have been.
The renegotiated contract introduced two steps into that process. First, the service family contracted a company called Pinnacle, which then handed off that work to either Amey, in my area, or—I am afraid that, off the top of my head, I do not recall the other company that was involved in other parts of the country. Clearly, when data has to be handed off between two companies, it introduces a level of risk. Although there is no reason why that should not be done, it caused problems in that instance.
I thank the former Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who dealt with all our queries quickly and effectively. However, it was symptomatic of how badly the contract was operating that we had to hand off hundreds of pieces of casework directly to the Minister to get them resolved.
To give hon. Members some examples, we had families without hot water for weeks on end and broken pipes that were not dealt with. I mentioned crows falling down the chimney, because that was one of the instances that we dealt with, as well a number of cases of severe damp and mould and gas certificates not being completed on time. There are a number of issues around the maintenance of the housing.
We have not had a similar cold snap this year, so we have not had the same types of issues that we saw this time last year with frozen pipes, broken boilers and mould, but I am interested to hear from the Minister how the contract is performing and whether the remediation that we were promised over the summer has taken place. The compensation bill to the families involved was huge, and I wonder whether he can enlighten us on how much having an inefficient contract in place cost the taxpayer.
On top of the maintenance issues, there are all the empty properties around and about and the way in which they are not maintained once they are empty. As an add-on to the problem with the service contract, we had empty properties at Shawbury where the pipes froze, and there was a burst pipe. No one there reported that because no one was living there, and the person next door, who reported it, did not have the right authority to get a contractor out. There are issues with collapsed ceilings and a general worsening of the housing stock, which is already in short supply.
It is really important to think about service families, their peripatetic lives, and the fact that they may not have a community around them, unless they are living in a service family community. When housing stock falls into disrepair and their alternative is to rent in the private rented sector, not only might that be inconvenient due to the new accommodation’s distance from their location, but they will no longer be in that community of people who experience the same challenges in lifestyle. Service family accommodation is really important not just in terms of location and its convenience for the base, but for those families to be part of a community that understands what they go through daily.
Well before our time, in 1996, the Government sold military housing stock of 57,400 homes to Annington Homes. That contract did not cover maintenance, so the Government remain responsible for maintaining that housing. I believe that costs the taxpayer about £180 million a year in rent and £140 million a year in maintenance and upgrades. The National Audit Office has concluded that that deal was really poor value. We cannot revisit what happened in 1996, but I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps the Government are taking to improve that situation. We have read speculation in the press that they might be considering buying back some of those houses. Will he give us a general update on how that situation might be improved?
I also want to talk about maintenance issues—perhaps not the urgent ones that caused us so many difficulties this time last year, but the ongoing issues of damp, mould and generally poor-quality housing. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire gave some statistics showing how that has worsened over the course of the year. Earlier this year, the Government committed to deal with 60% of the properties that had damp and mould, but that begs the question: what about the other 40%? This is genuinely serious, because families are reporting health concerns as a result of living in mouldy properties. A constituent contacted me recently from Clive Barracks at Ternhill to say that their health has been worsening, but they do not seem to be able to meet the threshold to get what must be severe mould in their property dealt with. That is not acceptable.
We have talked a little bit about families, but obviously there are servicemen and women who go off on tours of duty and come back to service single accommodation. I raised a question about Ternhill at oral questions a couple of weeks ago. A constituent had reported rat-infested, crowded accommodation that was mouldy, as well as kit becoming mouldy and unfit for use, and the generally despicable situation there, which is being addressed by temporary accommodation pods popped into the car park. They are an improvement, and we should acknowledge that they are an attempt to resolve an urgent problem, but it is not okay for servicemen and women to be living in a temporary pod in a car park with no privacy, no rest and recuperation area, and just a bed and a bathroom. Will the Minister give us an update on that as well?
I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Servicemen and women make a huge sacrifice for us. They are prepared to put their lives on the line. They often have to move their families around to an extent that many people would not feel comfortable with. We have enormous respect for them, regardless of our background or political leaning. A warm and safe home to return to at the end of the day is the minimum that they should expect. It is not acceptable for us to stand here asking, “Well, can we fix the mould in the hundreds of affected properties?” We need a plan to resolve the issue not just of the maintenance contract but of the genuinely poor-quality stock that we expect people to live in. I will be grateful if the Minister updates us today on what that plan is and how quickly it will be executed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) for setting the scene so very well in this, his first debate—the first of many, I am sure. And what a good choice for a first debate—well done. The fact that we are all here to contribute shows our concern for service personnel.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. He has come straight from the main Chamber, as indeed have I and others. We look forward to a positive response. I also look forward to the contributions from the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), and especially from the Labour party shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
I declare an interest as a former soldier, Dame Angela. I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years in an anti-terrorist role—not that I ever had the chance to pull the trigger of the gun. Maybe that was a good thing, although I did think about a few people who would have been better put in jail. In the Territorial Army, I served with the Royal Artillery for 11 and a half years. That was before the east-west border came down, so it was a long time ago, but it has given me an interest in service matters, and particularly accommodation.
The issue is important not only to me, but to many of my constituents who currently face poor accommodation choices. Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had a chance to visit some of the accommodation overseas and on the mainland here in the UK. Cases brought to our attention clearly illustrated that while the accommodation in some cases was wonderful—marvellous—in others it was clearly not up to standard. That had an impact upon me. In 2016, the Public Accounts Committee said service families
“have been badly let down for many years”
and are not getting the accommodation service they
“have a right to expect”.
Why is that right to expect not being upheld? If they are being let down, they have a right to expect better. It is so important that we do all we can to ensure they are rewarded with good-quality accommodation.
The Governments of Wales and Scotland and the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for delivering certain aspects of the armed forces covenant in their areas. The Welsh and Scottish Governments contribute to the armed forces covenant annual reports, but Northern Ireland does not. There is a reason for that. It is fair comment to say that back home in Northern Ireland, veterans do not generally attract priority for housing. To be fair, it is a devolved matter, so it is not the Minister’s responsibility directly, but I will outline a case later that makes my frustration with our system back home clear.
In addition to this, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive operate the housing system purely on a points system, with criteria that housing applicants must meet to be considered for a particular property. I would love it if it were the same for us in Northern Ireland as it is here for those who leave the Army after years of service. I have a case of a gentleman—I shall mention him again shortly—who left the Army after 20 years of service and has not been able to secure accommodation, despite the best efforts of charities and elected representatives to achieve that. There are real issues for us back home to ensure things can be done better.
Single men with no dependants are less likely to be rehoused quickly, even though they may have lengthy service as a veteran, or indeed not as a veteran. I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent in his 40s who was discharged from the Army in July this year after 20 years of honourable service. He is widowed and has no children. My office, along with other organisations, has been assisting him to be rehomed in the local area, via the Housing Executive. All he requires is a one-bed property, but he has only 60 points. I am not sure if that resonates with people here in the mainland, but for someone to get a property—even a one-bed—they need twice that number of points. It could be months—possibly years—before he is rehoused.
While others are talking about the state of accommodation, I am talking about people actually getting accommodation and our frustration with a system that just does not seem to be working. My constituent is currently residing with a charity that I have spoken of many times in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. Beyond the Battlefield is a wonderful charity which I have been involved with since its inception. With Government and charitable help, the charity has been able to open a centre in Portavogie, in my constituency of Strangford, where it has nine bedrooms to allocate. The charity is vastly oversubscribed and has applied for a central Government grant for an extension. The building has capacity for another nine bedrooms, which would be filled, such is the demand in Northern Ireland.
The charity goes the extra mile to support veterans who are simply discharged, with no thought given to how they will integrate into normal society. My and others’ frustration is that, when they leave, many are in a difficult position, whether because of trauma, post-traumatic stress, what they have seen when serving, or the life that they have led in the service of this country. Beyond the Battlefield helps to provide emergency accommodation, which is currently where my constituent is staying. Its volunteers provide instrumental support to veterans.
That is a classic example of how veterans in Northern Ireland are being let down in terms of their housing status: they have no other choice but to seek assistance from other organisations. On Remembrance Sunday, I saw a man, six foot, broad at the shoulders and tight at the hip; I knew just by looking that he was a soldier. He was doing his bit to remember all those friends and colleagues that he had lost over 20 years of service in Iraq, Afghanistan and some tours of duty in Northern Ireland. In my mind, the least we could do is support him, and many other like him, in his time of need, after decades of service to this nation.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I served, in my case as an infantry officer in the Territorial Army during the cold war. He knows that the House of Commons Defence Committee is in the middle of an inquiry into service accommodation. The Minister is to give evidence to us in the new year, and I will not pre-empt that, but I make one point: for over a year, a number of service families were living in quarters that did not have gas and/or electricity safety certificates. We put those people at risk. Does he agree that that is completely unacceptable?
Jim Shannon
Yes, and it is also disrespectful that there should be any safety issues. The Minister is listening, of course, and will undoubtedly take that on board. When someone serves their country in uniform, honourably and to the best of their ability, we have to look after them. That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, that is what I think, and that is what we all think. Their service means something.
We can do much more collectively as a nation to support our ex-service personnel in terms of their housing. We cannot expect them to integrate back into society with no assistance, and the first part of that is ensuring that they have a safe and warm place to call home. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is estimated that 4% of the homeless population are ex-service personnel. I think we all have a heart for them. I am convinced that everybody here has a heart for them and believes we must do our best for them. We are asking for a 100% response. To give the House some idea of the numbers, in 2019, the ex-service personnel homeless population was some 12,000. Although in recent years the figures have, I believe, been decreasing, much work is still to be done.
The Minister always tries to respond positively, and I know that he will do so today; I ask him to engage with the devolved nations, particularly Northern Ireland. I have highlighted a discrepancy that greatly annoys me and other elected representatives. We have people from both sides of the divide who serve in uniform; whether they are from a nationalist or a Unionist community, when they are in uniform, they serve King and country. That illustrates very clearly where we are.
What other steps can be taken to tackle this problem nationwide? I ask for the Minister’s direct involvement in relation to Northern Ireland. I know that, as he said in the Chamber today, he was over in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on Armed Forces Day. I think that he has a heart for Northern Ireland. I ask him to let his heartstrings be tugged in relation to Northern Ireland and to ensure that we can participate—indeed, have the same system as service personnel have here for accommodation. Let us get it right for them.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern). He gave an excellent speech and asked some really good questions—some really inquiring, curious questions—of the Minister, and we look forward to hearing the answers.
I shall present two anecdotes and make one comment about some of the effects of what we have talked about today. One anecdote relates to a time during my service, and another relates to some correspondence that I have received much more recently. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire talked about the experiences of people who are serving in his constituency. I served at Army Training Regiment Bassingbourn in Hertfordshire, just over the county border from Bedfordshire, and I have very fond memories of the good-quality single living accommodation at ATR Bassingbourn.
Five or six years later, living with a family in service family accommodation, my experience again was a good one. On one occasion, we had water dripping through the ceiling of the family home; we rang up to try to get it solved and it was fixed within days. That was an excellent rapid turnaround time for the service family accommodation at Shrivenham when I was there in 2009.
In some ways, that made me slightly sceptical when I heard all of these stories about service family accommodation being in such a poor state, so I decided that I would have some conversations with people who are still serving to find out whether that was really the case. Somebody who I trust a great deal told me me that they had a baby last year, and they had no mould-free room in the house to put the baby in. We have to bear in mind when talking about armed forces personnel in service family accommodation that many are younger people, who are starting their family.
I was frustrated to learn over the summer that the Defence Committee’s Sub-Committee that is looking into service family accommodation will not be hearing evidence directly from service personnel. I do not know whether that has been put right since, but I read over the summer that the Defence Secretary was not permitting service personnel to give testimony directly to that Sub-Committee.
Mr Francois
Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member. That was the position of the previous Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), but, in fairness to the new Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), he rescinded that instruction so that defence personnel were able to give evidence—certainly written evidence—directly to the Sub-Committee, without fear or favour for their career, as it were. It is analogous to what happened regarding the inquiry into bullying allegations from female personnel.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that clarification. As a member of the Defence Committee, he will be much closer to this matter than I am. What he says has not stopped us as constituency MPs from receiving correspondence on the subject. I received a letter in October from a regimental sergeant major—a warrant officer, first class, who has had a very long career in the armed forces. He is frankly at the end of their career—a top-of-the-tree, very senior soldier. He wrote on behalf of his son, who is serving and clearly did not feel able to write directly. The RSM writes:
“Briefly my son, who was on exercise in Germany at the time, had left his wife and two sons (aged 5 and 3 months at the time) at home presuming they would be safe. Unfortunately, one evening my daughter-in-law heard a noise from upstairs and went to investigate. Imagine her shock and horror to find an adult rat in the baby’s cot!”
There is a series of letters about what this former senior soldier regards as having developed over the past 15 or 20 years. He talks about the substantial subcontracting that goes on. While VIVO was perhaps initially responsible, it subcontracted to Pinnacle, and then when the rodent infestation was being dealt with, there was a further subcontracting to Vergo Pest Management. That pest management company sought to deal with the rats in that one house, but failed to notice that the entire street was infested. He says that Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15 were all suffering from rat infestations.
It is plain to me that some of the companies responsible for this issue these days have noticed that it is clearly something they are under the cosh for. Indeed, many of us will have had an email from a lobbyist from Amey earlier today to say that it
“recognised the challenges that families faced with their accommodation during the mobilisation period of the new contract”.
I resent the defensive language used by some of these companies. When it mentions the “mobilisation” of the new contract, it is hiding behind language that the armed forces tend to use, and it is obfuscation.
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. A mobilisation period under a contract is typically six to nine months. To my knowledge, it has been 18 months since that contract was implemented. We should not still be experiencing problems with it. That is why it is so important that we get clarification on whether steps are being taken to improve performance under it.
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that excuses to do with a contract handover period are hard to bear in any case, but certainly when such a great length of time has elapsed.
To bring all that to a conclusion, we need to step back from the detail and ask what this means. The Army is being shrunk to just 73,000 regular soldiers. That is a substantial drop from 84,000 even a year ago, and certainly a large drop from 120,000 when I was serving. Partly, that is due to a failure to retain excellent people. Clearly, the armed forces continue to retain some truly excellent people, but some great people are being lost to the service because of experiences such as those I have described. In the armed forces continuous attitude survey this year, just 34% of service personnel said they felt valued. If we do not realise that service is not just about the service person, but the experience of their wider family, we will continue to have these sorts of problems.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this important issue. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) for bringing forward this important debate. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), not least because he is an extraordinary advocate for the armed forces and all things defence; it also means that a Conservative MP has turned up to speak in the debate. It would have been better if a few more of them were here to challenge the Minister, perhaps more gently than we will. Here is a word for the Minister: proportion. He can look it up, and can then reflect on the comments he has made from a sedentary position.
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Member for his kind compliment, but I have to point out that I am one more Tory Back Bencher than we have SNP Back Benchers here.
Dave Doogan
The right hon. Gentleman may not have wanted to add grist to the Minister’s mill, and I do not want to use up all my time debating this, but as you know, Dame Angela, there are a mere 45 SNP MPs in Parliament, and I am here to speak on behalf of all of them. There are a great many more Conservative than SNP MPs in Parliament, so proportionately, I think you will find we are doing rather well, compared with the Conservatives. The right hon. Member might also like to know, since he has got right under my temper, that the Conservative Government, and successive Governments before them—
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Order. We had better get back to the point at issue.
Dave Doogan
Very wise counsel, as ever.
Our military personnel have been forced to suffer plummeting living standards in the United Kingdom. If we are serious about creating resilient and robust armed forces, we must be serious about prioritising their basic needs, not least of which is accommodation. The SNP’s core policy is to establish an armed forces representative body. That would be a key step in ensuring that members in uniform could argue for increased adequacy of service accommodation without fear for their career prospects, and without needing to complain to their supervisors and officers, with the attendant concerns that that brings.
Hopefully I will make this point in a not very political way. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned the historical element to this issue. It did not start in 2010, when this Government came in, or in 1997, when the Labour Government came in. Rather, when it comes to service accommodation, we see a confluence of negative headwinds. Very poor-quality accommodation that was built down to a price has not been properly maintained over the last 50 years, and has had a succession of tenants in it; that is just the nature of it. That accommodation has not been properly maintained over the last 10 years, and it is getting worse and worse; some of it is probably approaching the end of its service life. I would be interested to know what the Minister has done to ensure strategic analysis of the entire stock, to see what should be renovated and what should be knocked down.
It is testament to the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme that everyone in this room has either served on that scheme, or in the armed forces. That will have given us first-hand, primary evidence of what many people have to endure. The hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) is no longer in his place, but I know that he has been on the scheme, and he raised these issues too. I have great confidence that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford will get some very compelling evidence for the Defence Sub-Committee’s report. I am sure that the Minister will take time to reflect on that report in detail, and I look forward to seeing the evidence of that.
I am not in the habit of getting a response from Ministers in this place, but I politely request that the Minister advise us why the Government are so opposed to an armed forces representative body. It is not unusual. They have one in a great many other parts of the world, including the United States, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany and Norway. What is unusual about those NATO allies—we could rather ask: what is unusual about the United Kingdom?—that means that they can give their armed forces personnel an opportunity to discuss their terms and conditions, and their ambitions and hopes, with somebody who is not their senior officer, in a way that promotes honesty and hopefully progress? I think that we would both welcome those two drivers.
In summary, I look forward to the Minister perhaps responding to my one question, and I again reflect on how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for securing this debate.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) for securing this debate, which is testament to what can happen when an MP who is elected by their constituents turns up to this place. They can raise issues that genuinely concern constituents. The figure that he cited—64% of service accommodation being of the lowest grade—is not just terrible; it is one of the worst in the entire UK. He is absolutely right to bring this matter to the House, and to ask the Minister what he will do about it.
It is important to recognise that poor-quality defence accommodation damages morale, recruitment and retention, and creates an atmosphere in which the families of those who serve fall out of love with military service. It undermines the moral contract between the nation and those who serve and their families. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he opened the debate, and for standing up for his constituents.
Our service personnel and their families deserve decent, safe, warm accommodation. That is key to the moral contract between our nation and those who serve in uniform. The armed forces covenant sets out that service accommodation should be of
“good quality, affordable and suitably located”,
but as we have heard today in a series of excellent contributions, the condition of service accommodation and housing is a straight-up scandal; the Conservatives are failing our forces and their families.
Broken boilers, leaky roofs, black mould, vermin and endless waits for basic repairs are all shockingly common. The examples given by the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), highlight that the issue is not isolated. It affects not some bases some of the time, but defence accommodation across our country. It damages the morale of those who serve, wherever they serve, if they are given accommodation for themselves and their families that is sub-par and below the standard that they should expect. The Minister and everyone in this debate knows that people have very different expections for their living conditions when they are deployed towards the frontline, and for where they and their family should live when at home. Things are not working at the moment.
To sum up the Government’s record, one in three personnel lives in the lowest grade single-living accommodation; complaints about damp and mould are up 40% this year; 800 families were without a valid gas safety certificate as of June; fewer than one in five personnel is satisfied with the repair work; there have been faulty heating complaints in the equivalent of half of service family properties since new maintenance contracts were awarded; and more than 1,300 personnel live in accommodation of such poor quality that the MOD does not even bother charging rent on it. Those conditions are not acceptable in civilian life, and they should not be acceptable for anyone who serves our country.
This debate becomes particularly important as temperatures drop and Christmas approaches. Last year, the Government sleepwalked into a winter crisis in service accommodation; even the Minister admitted that performance was not good enough. I am grateful for that honesty. We need that honesty about what can be achieved this winter as well.
One service family told me that they went without a working boiler for three weeks, and were forced to live in a hotel over Christmas and new year. Another posted on social media that he spent five days without heating, and had to wash his seven-month-old son with boiled kettle water. That is simply not acceptable for those who serve. Insultingly, military families were given as little as £1 in compensation for heating and hot water loss. Can the Minister assure me that this Christmas, no family will have to go without heating and hot water, or be forced out of their home because of maintenance issues? I asked the Minister that same question at Defence questions last month. He did not quite give me the reassurance that I was looking for, so I am giving him another opportunity to do so.
Also, how many service properties have experienced total loss of heating and water so far in December? How many of the 1,500 service homes promised boiler and heating upgrades in the Government’s winter planning statement have so far received that work? What other mitigations is the Minister putting in place? Damp and mould have been mentioned a number of times. Those issues affect housing across our country, but they do not have no solution. What is the Minister doing to tackle damp and mould, particularly in homes that are not covered by the work that he has so far announced? What happens to them? How long will they have to wait?
One service spouse wrote on social media recently that despite being six months pregnant and having a four-year-old child, she was still living in a mouldy home months after reporting it. That gets to the nub of the complaints raised by hon. Members. It is not that people who serve are not raising complaints; frequently, those complaints are not acted on, or if someone visits, it is so that they can tick a box on the response time, not so that they can complete the job and ensure that the complaint is dealt with properly.
After scrutiny from Labour, the Ministry of Defence admitted that about 700 forces families who were promised damp and mould mitigation will not benefit from the completed work until April 2024. Why is that taking so long? The MOD’s winter plan to help families through the coldest months will not even be fully delivered until the spring. That beggars belief. What is the Minister doing to speed that up?
People in my constituency live in Stonehouse barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines. I have had to raise repeatedly the issue of their loss of hot water and lack of heating. The Government intended to close that base, but are now delaying its closure from 2027 until 2029. Everyone who serves there should be given reassurance that they will be able to access hot water and heating, especially in buildings that are hundreds of years old. When we talk about “homes fit for heroes”, we mean homes that people can genuinely rely on to be safe and secure.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) raised the issue of gas safety certificates. We would rightly call for rogue landlords in the private sector to be prosecuted, and hauled over the coals. What happened to those people in charge of progress in getting gas safety certificates? Was any action taken against the contractors who clearly failed to do that, or was it just marked up as yet another problem in this area?
The hon. Member for North Shropshire, I think, mentioned empty properties. As a Plymouth MP, I have certainly been contacted about the large defence estate just over the boundary from my patch, in Plympton in south-west Devon, which has an enormous number of empty properties. There is real frustration about empty properties in the middle of a housing crisis. We all accept that the MOD must have a certain amount of properties to rotate, so that it can deploy people as and when required, but will the Minister set out how many empty properties the MOD has, and whether the figure is larger than normal? Locally, the number of empty properties seems larger than expected for the anticipated rotation, even in a military city such as Plymouth.
Poor-quality defence accommodation has a direct impact on morale, recruitment and retention. New MOD figures show that the number of troops in the armed forces has fallen to a record low, and satisfaction with service life has plummeted to the lowest level on record. Less than half of personnel are satisfied with their service accommodation, and fewer than one in five is satisfied with repair work. We will not be able to solve the problems of retention and recruitment without fixing defence housing. That is why Labour has said that when we are in government, we will deliver homes fit for heroes—by acting on the Kerslake review, an independent review of service accommodation; by getting tough on failing contractors; and by legislating to establish an armed forces commissioner, a strong independent voice for personnel with the power to investigate issues affecting them and their families. That should include defence housing.
As the son of a submariner, and as the representative of a military city, this is personal to me. When the Royal Marines are about to ship out on deployment, there is a surge of calls to my office from marines worried about whether the repairs that they have been chasing will be delivered before they deploy, and whether their families will be living in a dry, warm home while they are away. That should not happen in a country that values the armed forces as much as ours.
We need to rebuild our moral contract with those who serve. That is what my party has set out to do, and I believe fundamentally that that is what the Minister hopes he is delivering. I have to say, however, that the record discussed in this debate by Members from right across the House is not one of which the Government should be proud; indeed, they should apologise for it. In these more contested times, if we do not see action, how long will it be until we have a real crisis in retention and recruitment at a time when we need to deploy our military forces?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am shadowed by your twin and chaired by you: as a father of twins, it is a pleasure to experience.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) on securing his maiden Westminster Hall debate. I recently had an oral question from him about accommodation, so it is a credit to him that he is persisting, and that is true of other colleagues in the Chamber. He raised some very important points, primarily about the two bases in his constituency. On the overall point, which many colleagues made but he did in particular, I absolutely accept that this is a retention issue. Of course it is. It says a lot about the importance we place on the duty of our personnel to serve their country and our efforts to ensure that they have the best. I was quite open during oral questions, in referring to the winter plan, that we did not do well enough last winter. We have been determined to make up for that this year, and I will talk about the detail of that.
Make no mistake, the provision of high-quality subsidised accommodation for service personnel is a key priority for us. Horror stories such as we have heard, with rats, dry rot and so on, are disturbing. I reassure colleagues that, appalling though such instances are, they are unrepresentative of the experience of the vast majority of service people. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, for example, 96% of service family accommodation meets or exceeds Government decent home standards, which is almost identical to the national figure.
In the time available, I want to set out some of the key measures we have taken to rectify the situation to ensure that we improve our armed forces accommodation. I will start with single living accommodation. The Department provides a total of around 171,000 permanent, temporary and training bed spaces worldwide. As of 16 October, 92,000 service personnel were living in SLA. There have been longstanding concerns, rightly, among frontline commands that SLA is not up to scratch, which is why we are now implementing plans across the Navy, Army and Air Force to eliminate the worst accommodation. A Defence minimum standard has been established, which all SLA is expected to meet. As of 13 November, some 84% of rooms met the standard. That means that 13,347 did not, which falls well short of where we need to be. However, the intent is that, by April 2024, a further 30% of those will be upgraded. In the longer term, the Department will invest around £5.3 billion in SLA over the next 10 years to get homes up to standard. That will see us deliver approximately 40,000 new or refurbished bed spaces.
As Minister for Defence Procurement, I am well aware that day-to-day maintenance issues are unavoidable. They are the cause of considerable correspondence that I receive from colleagues from all parties. So it has proved in the past year, with several thousand issues relating to heating and hot water being reported. Any reports of vermin in SLA or service family accommodation —which I will come on to shortly—should be made to the national service centre, which will arrange for appropriate action including pest control if required, although I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) about his experience with multiple contractors and so on.
Turning to SFA, the Government continue to invest significant sums to improve the quality of UK service family accommodation. Our Defence Infrastructure Organisation received an investment of £400 million over this financial year and the next as part of the defence Command Paper refresh. The £380.2 million forecast for this year is more than double last year’s investment in maintenance and improvements. As we have heard today, hon. Members are well aware of some of the issues, but it is investment that ultimately will lead to the change.
I want to set out some of the mitigations we have undertaken this year. We have established a dedicated hotline to address specific concerns with damp and mould, and we have improved the initial triage process to prioritise cases. That includes an onsite visit to apply initial treatment, to assess the need for follow-up and to decide whether a professional survey is required. We have also been working hard with our contractors to deliver around 4,000 standardised damp mitigation packages—I will come to the point about the remaining homes shortly—which include measures to increase insulation, replace guttering, upgrade extractor fans, replace radiators and reseal windows and doors. To date, more than 1,360 have been completed, and around 700 further packages are planned to be delivered early in the next financial year. The remaining homes with less severe instances of damp and mould are being dealt with through simple maintenance visits, so the vast majority of these tasks have already been completed.
Furthermore, our plan for this winter includes boiler and heating upgrades for about 1,500 homes. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, we are now entering wintertime, and I recognise colleagues’ concerns and how anxious they will be for reassurance that there will be no repeat of the slow response times during last year’s cold snap. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire rightly spoke about telephone waiting times. We cannot have people left hanging on the phone in freezing homes waiting to speak to an engineer. On that front, it is worth pointing out that Pinnacle’s national service centre continues to maintain a strong performance. The average speed to answer rates in November were, for the ninth consecutive month, well within the 120 second average. The hon. Gentleman asked how many extra call handlers Pinnacle has taken on. The answer is 65, which means that most calls are now answered within 29 seconds—a very significant improvement.
I have another very important point to make to the hon. Gentleman. Before I respond to some of the other contributions, I want to update him on the status of Chicksands military base in his constituency of Mid Bedfordshire. Like me, he will be aware that rumours have been flying around about its future. I can confirm that, from 2030 onwards, it will be disposed of, but that will happen only when everybody has been relocated as part of a significant commitment to defence intelligence. The schedule will be refined as construction gets under way, and we will keep him informed as it progresses. Of course, I will write to him with full details, because I know how important it is for him. That will enable him to engage with his constituents and the service personnel based there.
Luke Pollard
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire will be grateful for the information about his local base. Is that a change just for that one base, or is it part of a wider changing of closure times that will affect other bases around the country and that the Minister may wish to update the House about?
James Cartlidge
I was referring specifically to the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, and I will write to him with the full details, as I said.
I turn to other colleagues’ contributions. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to a discrepancy. To be completely frank, I was not aware of that so I implore him to write to me with the full details. He illustrated how important this issue is in every part of the Union, so I pay tribute to him for his contribution—and he was not called last, which was a great benefit to today’s debate.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who has raised this issue with me previously in oral questions and has been a doughty campaigner on it. I know she has had some significant issues in Clive, for example. On the current position, the figures on damp and mould represents 62% of the total outstanding that we believe need treatment, and 1,360 have been completed to date. She also spoke about the impact on health. I understand the importance of that, which is why we were so determined to get extra money in and why I announced the winter plan showing how damp and mould packages will be implemented for individual properties.
Helen Morgan
On the point about bases that is to be closed, Clive barracks is due to be closed in 2029. Is there is a risk that, because it has a finite lifespan, we are not putting in the investment we need and that we are accepting poor-quality accommodation for what is still a good number of years? What is the Minister’s plan to address that?
James Cartlidge
That is a fair question. I was talking about the minimum standards that we require, which apply to about 96% of our estate. To reassure the hon. Lady, they apply irrespective of whether the accommodation is not planned for disposal or otherwise.
The hon. Lady also asked about Annington. She will be aware that it has been subject to court action recently and therefore, although she made an excellent point, I am very restricted in what I can say publicly. Certainly, it is an issue to keep an eye on.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for his service in the Adjutant General’s Corps. He made a very good point about contracts, which of course are important. We should be wary of assuming that another arrangement would be necessarily cheaper or more efficient, but there is no doubt that there were major issues in the initial transition. We have now seen an improvement on some key performance indicators, but where performance has fallen short, we have, where appropriate, withheld profit.
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) spoke about engagement with armed forces personnel. All I can say is that as Minister for Defence Procurement, I am responsible for the estate, and when I have been out visiting the estate I generally find that there is a way of having regular engagement on the condition of accommodation. I saw that recently when I visited Odiham with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena). That meant a great deal to the service personnel that we met, so regular engagement does happen in respect of accommodation.
Dave Doogan
I recognise the dynamic that the Minister is talking about, although not from a ministerial point of view. When we speak to service personnel, they are frank. What he is detailing is an informal, ad hoc discussion. What I was requesting was clarity on why the UK objects to having a formalised defence service recognition body.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I think that is an important way to conduct that. We should not get carried away with the idea of formalising all these things. Of course, we want to have a good relationship with our armed forces personnel. The key to that is ensuring they have good quality accommodation.
I will conclude by joining colleagues in saying, as we head towards Christmas, that it is absolutely right that our thoughts are with our armed forces, particularly those deployed overseas. As chair of the Defence Nuclear Board, I particularly remember those who serve to support our continuous at-sea deterrent in our submarines. It is fair to say that I was clear at oral questions and today that last winter we did not do well enough. Too many families waited too long for solutions to the problems they faced.
That is why we have got the extra money in place, which is a significant increase in funding of £400 million. In the winter plan, we show the impact that that will have. We have a plan, we are investing and we are fixing problems, though we know more needs to be done. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire on calling this important debate.
Alistair Strathern
I want to start by thanking everyone who has taken the time to engage in this important debate. I know it matters, not just to our constituents but to so many of those serving and their families across the country. They will be touched by the consideration hon. Members have shown to their challenges, and the sense of urgency to address them that I hope we all feel in this House.
I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for their interventions about the impact on morale, and the urgency to take clear action to address the issue. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for her stories about the impact on her constituents, with the history of the maintenance and stock challenges that created some of the issues we are all having to wrestle with.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about the impact in Northern Ireland, and the particular challenges people are facing in even getting access to crucial accommodation for themselves and their family. I would also like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for highlighting the challenges, such as presenting the bare minimums, the safety certificates that every service family should have as an absolute necessity, to feel safe in their home.
I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), not just for his service but for eloquent interventions, talking through some of the challenges his constituents have faced and some of his own experiences of service, as a helpful contrast of what is possible when things are done right. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) for his clarifications, and the things to focus on, including the need to assess what part of the stock is maintainable and what might need a complete refresh, finally to give families of service force personnel the accommodation they deserve.
I would like to thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for taking the time to be here to highlight the breadth of the challenges that service personnel face in the quality of their accommodation, and the urgency to ensure we address the issues properly. He also reassured me by spelling out the serious action we will commit to take as a party in Government, to ensure these issues get the attention, bandwidth, focus and urgency that they deserve.
I am grateful to the Minister for being here, and I appreciate some of the assurances he has given, and his openness in accepting the challenges that need to be addressed. He mentioned that some of them are not representative of wider issues. I fear to say that in Bedfordshire, where 64% of single living accommodation is at that lowest possible grade, it may be more representative than his remarks suggested. In the constituency of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, 52% fall into that lowest grade. That may be a more representative issue that needs real urgency to address.
I am glad to hear extra recruits are lined up to help man the phones this winter. I hope the Minister and his Department are ensuring that service personnel are not left waiting when they report urgent issues. I hope he can commit with the urgency that all of us have shown today, to tackle the issue. It is clear the House speaks as one, in recognising that we need to do more to ensure that our service personnel are serving and living in accommodation that is truly fit for them and their work. I hope the Minister can give effect to that will, with the renewed urgency that we all hope to see for our constituents in the new year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the adequacy of service accommodation.
Mid Devon Council: Financial Settlement
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Mid Devon Council financial settlement.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your leadership, Dame Angela? It is also wonderful to see my near neighbour, the Minister, in his place; I am very grateful that he is here to respond. I am afraid that the subject of local government finances lacks any sort of excitement; it is always necessary, but is also obviously crushingly dull, as we can see from the attendance today.
I am grateful for the chance to bring the financial affairs of Mid Devon District Council to the attention of this Chamber and the House, but I apologise in advance if eyelids are already starting to droop, as night begins to fall on this very last day before the Christmas recess—and aren’t we looking forward to it? I will try to keep my speech as interesting and relevant as possible, and will also inject some seasonal flavour into the mix.
The story that I am about to tell is a modern morality tale in the manner of Charles Dickens, whom we all remember and love. Those familiar with Dickens’s—in my view—most famous novel, “A Christmas Carol”, will hardly need reminding that the narrative centres around the character of Ebenezer Scrooge. Anybody familiar with local government in Mid Devon will instantly recognise good old Ebenezer. Every town hall has one: painstaking with the money, ridiculously risk averse, totally resistant to any change and usually in charge of all the finances. Ebenezer Scrooge was, in Charles Dickens’s own words,
“a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!”
Gosh, does that not fill a few gaps around here? They are perhaps all the qualities of a typical 151 officer, just rather more interesting, I suspect. In real life, we would not ever expect Scrooge’s character to be capable of falling for a scam—not normally, anyway. We would not believe that this ultra-cautious animal could possibly give in to the dangerous habit of gambling with public money.
But that is just one possible conclusion of my perplexing story, which started life about a dozen years ago, in 2011. I hope you are sitting comfortably, Dame Angela. Those with long memories will recognise the date: it was when the Localism Bill came before Parliament, as we well remember. Localism was meant to cure so many of the complaints that we used to have. It established the principle of elected Mayors and conferred power on local councils to take investment decisions on their own. It arrived with the dawn of austerity, when Whitehall budgets were trimmed back to the bone. The impact at the coalface of local government would take time to be felt. We all remember ’08.
The new right to make commercial investments sounded like a lifeline to many normal, sensible officers in local government. Across the United Kingdom, they reached out and grabbed it with both hands. In fact, the enthusiasm for spending public money was, at times, quite unseemly: chief executives started jumping in with both feet, and their pockets were laden with taxpayers’ money—our money. They bought office blocks, shopping centres, business parks and hotels in the mistaken belief that there was a guarantee written into their financial forecasts for commercial investment. Well, there never is, and I am sorry: as the adverts say, the value of our investments can go down as well as up.
Localism may have answered the cry for freedom, but freedom, as we know, is riddled with hidden dangers. In many local councils it was rather like handing out fireworks and matches to the kindergarten. More often than not, senior officers of councils who should have known better did not have a clue about the cut and thrust of running any business. Why should they? They are seen as civil servants. Most of them, to be frank, had never handled any real money, let alone tackled the balance sheet of a fast moving company, organisation or commercial asset. They did not understand the difference between a board of directors and the cabinet decisions of elected local politicians.
As we know, companies need to react fast; their shareholders do not forgive very readily. Most of the time local governments can only go very slowly, and in the slow lane. They have very little in common with companies, and often do not even speak the same language between commercial rhetoric and Whitehall. They do not even understand who is in charge of business investments. After eager councils jumped on this, it all turned sour. Time and time again we have seen it fail.
Moody’s most recent report into the pitfalls of local investment decision recently highlighted 20 local authorities from across the political divide at a serious risk of going broke. Almost all of them, without exception—the Minister is aware of this—tried investing in business ventures that collapsed. The report blames serious “governance failures” and says that as a backlog of audits for 2022 is cleared,
“more and more failures are likely to be uncovered.”
It says:
“Only 12% of 2022 audits were completed by the statutory deadline; with prolonged delays meaning that major accounting misstatements”
—I am afraid—
“can be undetected for a number of years.”
The Public Accounts Committee, which we all know and love, estimates that local authorities have spent £7.6 billion on commercial investments since 2016. Let us be crude about this: this is a story of town hall greenhorns—totally inexperienced operators in charge of substantial sums of public money who were, if I may put it crudely, trying to make a fast buck. As a result, many councils spent far too much time on projects that were way outside their or anybody else’s comfort zone.
The women and men who allowed that to happen were mollycoddled by their own limited experience and totally out of touch with the way commerce works. I think this saga probably has less to do with criminality or any other naughtiness, and much more to do with the fact that the perpetrators—I say that in the loosest way—were chronically naive, and that is an awful thing to say.
The Localism Act became law in 2011, but in Mid Devon the council managed its affairs and carried on without recourse to any risky investments—they did not make any. The then chief executive felt no need to follow the lemmings of local government; he managed to keep the council on a reasonably even keel until his retirement. Yes, Mid Devon did need more money, but there was no need to take rash decisions and nor did they—good.
Then in 2015, the old chief executive retired honourably. His successor was the younger, brasher and arguably less scrupulous Stephen Walford, who was appointed to the top job in 2016. This is his own self-description:
“Prior to my current role, I worked as a Director of Growth & Strategy in the South East and also spent time in a range of place-based functions across county, unitary and district forms of local government having started my career in transport policy and strategy.”
Mr Walford came to rely on his loyal deputy, Andrew Jarrett, who said:
“I began my local government career back in 1992, spending my first 10 years with East Devon Council,”
—a neighbour to the Minister here, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—
“rising up through the finance ranks to the position of Finance Manager. In 2008 I joined Mid Devon DC as its Head of Finance, I was then promoted to Director of Finance, Assets & Resources in 2016, before taking on the role of Deputy Chief Executive in 2018.”
Those are their words.
When Walford and Jarrett moved into their jobs as top officers, I think they probably wanted to make their mark. But neither of them, from that description I just gave, had any experience at all in any other trade or profession; I do not think either of them had ever actually even done a paper round. There should have been alarm bells ringing at every level, but Mr Walford and his number-crunching colleague were a convincing double act like Laurel and Hardy—and many others I can think of.
I do not know whether the two men came up with the vision of the company mid Devon was to own. Its name is 3 Rivers, presumably named after the main River Exe that runs through Tiverton itself, ironically right outside the council building. Which two other rivers were chosen we may never know, as mid Devon has no fewer than 11 rivers gurgling through it. The other big rivers are the Culm and the Creedy, which would had given them a name of sorts, would it not? Three Creedys or three Culms would have been an interesting name for a company. Exe, Culm and Creedy sounds more like a firm of undertakers, which we will come on to in a minute.
Messrs Walford and Jarrett stuck to the name of 3 Rivers Developments. They went off to look at similar council investments. They enlisted the support of the Local Government Association, well known to all Members of Parliament. They came back convinced, and sold that conviction to elected councillors. 3 Rivers Developments became a company wholly owned by Mid Devon District Council, with a remit to build better, and
“In order to see enhanced quality of build, more affordable housing and a financial return to the Council to mitigate some of the difficulties of the national public sector austerity programme, as an alternative would have meant significant reductions in services, delivery and standards.”
It all sounds frightfully plausible—and squeaky clean. These words, however, were composed just the other day as senior officers tried to explain away their latest recommendation, which is to keep this company going. Strangely, Mid Devon District Council remains incredibly coy about revealing any pertinent details about anything to do with this company. There are now serious questions.
I have searched in vain—and I really mean, in vain—for any documents that were issued at the very start. They are mysteriously absent. The council archive system draws a blank if someone tries to view the original or any subsequent business plans. It was rather odd that the deputy chief executive was placed on the board of 3 Rivers. Conflicts of interest were bound to crop up—that is the way of the world. We have only just recently received confirmation that the council was prepared to lend 3 Rivers £21.3 million. This is a district council—not a unitary or county authority. That is seriously big money for a council of that size.
The current leader of the council is a Liberal Democrat called Luke somebody or other; I cannot remember his name—a complete non-entity. I know he has the job of pumping perfume into little bottles—that is his day job—which must be quite a talking point at parties and in the pub. His name escapes me; let’s call him Mr Thingamabob, because that is about all he deserves.
Anyway, the Liberal Democrats, who are now refusing to shut down this loss-making white elephant, never objected to its creation in the first place. If they did, they did it so quietly that nobody noticed. Mr Thingamabob may well have been won over by his smooth-talking chief exec; after all, it would be perfectly normal for him to trust his officers. Elected members never get paid enough to justify full-time work on council business. They are dedicated amateurs, no matter the party. They are obliged to listen to their officers—especially the most senior, who is the chief executive.
If elected members smell a rat, however, it is a different story. It is crystal clear to me that the level of trust a number of different political leaders—there have been four—had in senior officers fell to rock bottom during the lifetime of 3 Rivers Developments. The rats may have been smelled, and quite a few councillors became suspicious. The chief executive and his deputy tended to communicate by email and text message, which should tell us something. I am told that some of those exchanges make for very fruity reading indeed—we should have a look at the covid-19 inquiry at the moment to know what that is like.
One reason I am highlighting this sorry tale is that the so-called scrutiny committee—as we know, Dame Angela, the clue is in the word “scrutiny”; it does not always happen out there, especially in Mid Devon, which seems to have a mystery over scrutiny—has decided to make its own limp-wristed effort to get some of the truth, although not very much. It is lip service. The committee did not launch a proper searching inquiry; it never attempted to find the rats or name the guilty; it failed to perform a forensic examination of all the evidence; and it was told not to interview everybody.
In the event, it is a miracle that the committee was able to produce any kind of report, no matter how cack-handed and useless it is now. The committee was ordered by its party-throwing, good-time-girl supremo head of scrutiny to do a lessons learned exercise, and to do it quickly. What a pathetic disgrace! The chairman of scrutiny is meant to scrutinise. The only problem is that she is from the same party, which has done a terrible job.
The lady who heads the not-so-much scrutiny committee seems to prefer a feather-bedded view of the world that does not set the springs of her legendary mattress twanging. From the comfort of her rented house in the village of Bampton, she can daily cast her eye over one of the remaining 3 Rivers projects: a small estate of nine quite fancy executive homes with built-in garages and an absurd price tag.
The homes are on the market for silly prices. One, which is currently advertised for £675,000, has been on the market since January, 11 months ago. That says something about local councils and their lack of knowledge. When we called the estate agent to express a tiny bit of interest—you know what I am like for getting to the bottom of things, Dame Angela—the lady on the phone sounded surprised. She nearly fell off her chair. She confided that any offer would be considered: “Please, yes! I would be happy—delighted—just tell me what you would like to pay.” I am thinking of cheese, since the rats are looking for it. The 3 Rivers development has some flashy executive houses, but it cannot shift them.
The officers at Mid Devon District Council have known all about this situation. It is not new or clever. It is unlikely that this subject was discussed at the party on Sunday that Mrs Not-So-Much Scrutiny had at her house, thanks to the taxpayer. She was probably doing what she does best—polishing the egos of her party colleagues and doling out her famous dainties to be washed down with the very finest of wines. The Mid Devon extra responsibility bonus enables her to keep up this lavish lifestyle, even if she struggles to pay the rent on her accommodation.
I digress, however, from the Scrutiny Committee’s lessons learned inquiry. If hon. Members would like a flavour of the kind of evidence that it deliberately missed, I will ask them to bend their ears back and quote some of the following statements. This is a letter written by the chief exec to the former council leader, inviting him to submit some answers to a few questions:
“Can I highlight that the District Solicitor will be reviewing all information provided in order to ensure it meets the standards of accuracy and integrity that befits the worthiness of the scrutiny committee's consideration.”
It is obvious to me that the chief exec and the former leader lose no love on one another. This is the ex-council leader’s response:
“The fact that the District Solicitor ‘will be reviewing information provided [by me] to ensure it meets the standards of accuracy and integrity that befits the worthiness of the scrutiny committee’s consideration’ is nothing short of a deliberate insult and attack on my integrity. It could also be construed as potential censorship and manipulation of facts. Some may see it as attempted intimidation and as a veiled threat of legal action. I regard your letter as an attempt to restrict and control the activity of the Scrutiny Committee.”
That is the former council leader. In other words, it is “scratch your eyes out” time—and there is a whole lot more where that came from.
At least three former leaders do not trust the officers, and the whole council developed a tendency to disbelieve anything that they were told. Above all, the lessons learned report says:
“The tone of Council debate was not always as respectful as members may have liked. The feedback from almost all members of that time was that the whole thing as a subject became toxic; members complained of the abusive and disrespectful language used in debate, and individual members complained of bullying language and tactics. This resulted in support being brought in from the Local Government Association. There is ample evidence of the poor relationship which developed from 2019 onwards between the company and the Members. The aggressive critique which some members levelled against the company and those who were striving to improve its financial performance, undoubtedly increased the reputational damage suffered by the company leading to difficulty in maintaining contractors, and resulted in a degree of professional trauma. It cannot have favoured open discussion in Cabinet to improve management and performance”.
3 Rivers Developments bled money in ’19. The houses it had completed were not flying off the shelves; the country was about to suffer covid. It was pretty obvious that high-risk investments did not fit. One previous council leader was so convinced that he tried to persuade the two officers to recommend a closure; he tried to convince them in ’19, ’20 and ’21, but they refused. In fact, in ’21 the chief exec’s deputy broke with all council traditions and made a statement:
“3RDL is there to make money and recycle profit back to the council to protect from service cuts that would have had to have been made. Over the last three and a half years the council has benefited to the tune of £1.2 million by its transactions with 3RDL. That’s the annual cost of running our three leisure centres. It is a significant amount of financial reward or profit back into the council to underpin some very important services. If you look at the company’s business plan, it is due to grow over the next few years significantly.”
What is interesting about that intervention is the fact that Mr Jarrett went on the record at all—he has preferred to say as little as possible on the record. However, short months ago there was another pitfall: the Government changed the rules and said that in the future companies such as 3 Rivers Developments must source their work inside council boundaries. Why, then, did Mid Devon Council not go directly to the Treasury and ask to be cut a bit of slack? It does not matter if the work is half a mile outside the boundary—the chances are that it would be given clearance—but it did not even ask.
This is a saga of wasted opportunity, of council officials wielding enormous influence over councillors, letting them down, then falling out with the whole council. It is a disgrace. Those are all distressing situations, but there have been well-sourced stories in the press recently of real anger from members of the public who tried to obtain simple information about 3 Rivers Developments but were rebuffed. People complained that Mid Devon Council thinks that the whole business is far too complicated for ordinary people to understand, so information is deliberately withheld. When complaints are made at full council meetings, the chairman of the council brutally suppresses any debate. The chairman’s name, incidentally, is Councillor Frank Letch—a man with a short fuse. Perhaps it is a struggle—the naming of a person like Letch. Mainly, the posh dwellings designed for some spare land next to the council buildings are being converted for the use of over-60s, even though the location is completely unsuitable. I could, but will not, go on and on. This is a saga of cockups and blunder, and it is very expensive indeed. I would rather risk public money with Ebenezer Scrooge than with those responsible in Mid Devon, and especially the chairman of scrutiny, who is quite ridiculously incompetent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for bringing this topic before us this afternoon. At the start, I want to strike down the ludicrous assertion made by my hon. Friend that local government finance lacks any sort of excitement—he obviously has incredibly low standards. I find local government finance is the apogee of excitement; we can roll blockbuster films and west end musicals into one and we do not even begin to scrape the surface of the excitement of local government finance. As the Minister with responsibility for local government finance, I am afraid hon. Members just have to take my word for that.
My hon. Friend has raised some very serious allegations. I want to make a few points, but I shall try to do so with care. My door is open to my hon. Friend to come into the Department to meet officials to discuss this still further. Let me just make a few points, if I may. Mid Devon District Council is not on my departmental radar as a council causing concern in terms of its finances. Financial management is a different thing. In terms of its basic finances, it is not on the radar. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some comfort.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many councils buy properties; I declare that, as the cabinet member for resources on West Oxfordshire District Council back in the day, we did exactly the same. We went and bought, as many councils did, properties of a whole variety in order to help the council meet its expenditure. The key thing is, and he makes the valid point, that our officer corps are of a dedicated calibre. The world of commercial property is a very complex one, and I know my hon. Friend knows that from his own family experience all too well. He was right to say, “What goes up can also go down.” It was always going to be imperative that professional, dispassionate and external advice was sought, and not just sought but taken. Where there is a tension between the adoption of the buccaneering principle and the precautionary principle, when using public moneys, almost by definition the precautionary principle should always come to the fore.
I hear what my hon. Friend says with regards to 3 Rivers Developments. I do not know the gentleman to whom he refers with regard to the senior officers, and I can only speak from experience of my exposure and interaction with local government officers over very many years. My experience is that they are women and men of integrity who, day in and day out, devote themselves to the public service of their communities and always strive to do their best. Sometimes the best is not good enough, and sometimes the wrong decisions are taken. I think that the motivations of people in public service are usually strong and beyond challenge. I say gently to my hon. Friend that he may not like some of the things that the council has done, and he may have done things differently, but I repeat that the council is not currently on our radar.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to raise the importance of scrutiny. Scrutiny is a key function of local government. It works very well here with our Select Committees, and we know that. It is particularly important when any party has a very large majority, as the Liberal Democrats do in Mid Devon at the moment. One almost needs to double up and double down on scrutiny in order to prove beyond peradventure that that job is being done. I am about to run out of time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. As I say, I am happy to continue our conversation in order to ensure that the good folk of Mid Devon receive the service and services to which are they entitled and deserve.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Coastal Erosion: Suffolk and Norfolk
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered coastal erosion in Suffolk and Norfolk.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. Although erosion along the Suffolk and Norfolk coast is nothing new, it is accelerating, causing great distress and leaving a trail of devastation. In my constituency, Lowestoft remains the only UK coastal town of its size without formal flood defences. With another tidal surge predicted for later this week, a decision must be made imminently as to whether to put up the temporary demountable barriers that provide some protection.
Immediately to the south at Pakefield, three properties were lost last month and a rock revetment, which was installed last December to help protect an access road, is providing limited protection, with erosion of the cliff taking place at a speed that no one predicted. Further to the south at Kessingland, an innovative scheme has been worked up, which now requires additional funding due to the impact of covid and the ensuing inflation and supply chain pressures.
These challenges are not limited to the relatively short coastline of the current Waveney constituency. As we shall hear from colleagues, they are taking place all along the 140 miles of the Norfolk and Suffolk coast, not least at Hemsby in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). Many people and many organisations are working tirelessly to protect these communities that are so cruelly exposed, and some innovative solutions are being worked up.
Sir Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned Hemsby and he is quite right: we have lost properties, as many people have seen in the press coverage over recent weeks. Does he agree that one challenge we have seen is that, along our coastline, the impact of extreme weather conditions over the past year or so has gone way beyond the changes that were predicted when we looked at this some years ago with the Environment Agency? It is overdue an update on what pressure there is; the impact that we have seen has gone far beyond what was expected.
Peter Aldous
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree wholeheartedly with him: the schemes at Pakefield and Kessingland were made on assumptions that we would be having pressures in several years’ time; they have in fact taken place in the past months and weeks.
As I said, some innovative schemes are being worked up and people are working tirelessly. However, there is a concern that the scale of the challenge is not fully recognised, and that the necessary financial resources are not being provided. The impact of not responding properly will have far-reaching negative consequences way beyond East Anglia.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
That was a careful introduction and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. He is absolutely right. I understand that the debate is about coastal erosion in Norfolk and Suffolk, but in my constituency of Strangford, especially in the Ards peninsula in the past few years, we have seen erosion in a manifest and significant portion as never before. I am looking forward, as I know the hon. Gentleman is, but if we are to address our environmental obligations, steps need to be taken, and taken on a UK-wide basis—not just for England, but for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England together, because then we can pool our energies and address the problem at a strategic level. That is how it must be done, because this is happening everywhere.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Order. In the spirit of Christmas, I allowed that intervention. The debate is about coastal erosion in Suffolk and Norfolk. The hon. Member is getting close to the edge of scope there, but because it is Christmas, I allowed it this time.
Peter Aldous
Dame Angela, that is very magnanimous of you. Actually, the hon. Gentleman does have a point in that coastal erosion is included in the responsibilities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I will come on to this—along with flood prevention and protection. It is an entirely different challenge, and therefore coastal protection, whether in Suffolk and Norfolk or in Strangford in Northern Ireland, needs to be considered separately.
As I mentioned, erosion along the East Anglian coast is nothing new. December appears to be a particularly bleak month, with a tidal surge predicted in the next few days, although we do not know its severity. If we go back 10 years, a storm surge took place on 5 December that caused devastation right along the North sea coast, not least in Lowestoft. If we go as far back as the 1890s, the author H. Rider Haggard, who had a home at Kessingland, observed:
“Never has such a time for high tides been known, and the gale of December last will long be remembered on the east coast for its terrible amount of damage.”
The remnants of the medieval port of Dunwich are in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who would have liked to be here but was unable to join us due to a funeral commitment. Dunwich has been described as England’s Atlantis. The 1953 big flood, which wreaked devastation on both sides of the North sea, resulted in the loss of the beach village—a whole community in Lowestoft.
Our coastline is, in many respects, wonderful and beautiful. It attracts visitors from all around the world but it is also fragile, being low-lying, standing on clay, and porous not impervious. The challenge we now face is that events that were once predicted to take place every 50 or 100 years are now taking place far more regularly, on an almost annual basis, with lives and livelihoods being threatened, and homes, businesses, roads, infrastructure and farmland all at risk.
In recognition of that challenge, the three district councils—East Suffolk Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and North Norfolk District Council—that have the responsibility for managing and protecting the coast have pooled their resources and formed Coastal Partnership East. The team has great expertise and knowledge and it is working tirelessly, but I fear that it does not have the resources to do the work that is urgently needed.
That work is pressing, for a whole variety of reasons. I shall briefly outline the ultimate impact, which, as I said, reaches far beyond the East Anglian coast. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia produced a briefing earlier this month for the all-party parliamentary group for the east of England, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It highlighted both the region’s vital offer to the UK as we progress towards net zero, and the risks that climate change brings. The briefing pointed out that we are the UK’s “most vulnerable region” to the impacts of climate change, with 20% being below sea level and the coastline eroding rapidly. It assessed that
“11,000 houses on the open coast are threatened by flooding and erosion over this century, if current policies continue.”
We should also highlight that as well as homes, businesses will be lost, including the caravan and holiday parks in Kessingland, Pakefield and all along the coast, which are so important to the region’s economy. Business opportunities could also be forgone. The transition to net zero provides a great prospect for Lowestoft, but if we do not build permanent defences around the port, the town will not realise the great potential offered.
Agriculture has underpinned the East Anglian economy for a very long time. We are rightly known as the breadbasket of England, but much of the UK’s most fertile land is low-lying and, particularly in the fens, relies on an extensive network of ageing drainage infrastructure and sea defences. The current funding methodology underplays the importance of protecting the UK’s most valuable agricultural land, thereby impacting on our food security. The 1953 floods gave rise to the construction of extensive defences to protect the regional coastline. However, many of those defences are now worn out and in urgent need of repair.
The impact of coastal erosion on the environment should not be underestimated. As well as being a vital part of the region’s leisure economy, the Norfolk and Suffolk broads are a haven for wildlife and a place of natural beauty and cultural heritage. However, they are at risk from the threat of coastal erosion, with the coastal frontage between Eccles-on-Sea, which I understand now hardly exists, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and Winterton-on-Sea, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, having been identified as the stretch of coast along which the broads are most at risk of encroachment. The Broads Authority recognised that threat in its Broadland Futures Initiative, but strategic planning for its management needs to start straightaway. It should be added that coastal erosion brings with it the risk of polluting our oceans still further, with the leaching of waste and plastics into the sea.
I shall briefly outline the areas at risk from coastal erosion in my own constituency. All four of those—at Corton, in Lowestoft, at Pakefield and in Kessingland—warrant a debate of their own, so I apologise in advance to those communities for my brevity, although I shall do my best to highlight the salient points of concern. Corton, to the north of Lowestoft, has been subject to coastal erosion for centuries. There was a village to the east called Newton, which no longer exists, and agricultural land continues to disappear over the cliff. The threat to the village of Corton is at present being managed, but my sense is that in due course more intervention will be required, and it is important that we be prepared for that and not respond in a crisis management way.
As I have mentioned, Lowestoft was hit hard by the floods in 1953 and 2013. Since 2013, work has taken place to protect the area around the port and the town centre, with flood walls being built around the outer harbour, but the barrage that will provide full protection has yet to be constructed. Time is of the essence in getting that built. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have discussed the matter, and I have written in detail to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is vital that that work proceed without delay.
The situation unfolding in Pakefield illustrates the gravity of the threat that coastal erosion is now presenting. It has been known for some years that there is a problem, and some four years ago the local community came together as the Pakefield Coast Protection Steering Group to work with Coastal Partnership East to come up with both temporary and long-term solutions. A rock revetment to provide temporary protection was installed last December, but that did not prevent significant further erosion following a storm last month, and three properties had to be demolished. There is now an urgent need to protect the toe of the cliff and to prevent the cliff access road from being lost. If the latter happens, a large residential community will be very cruelly exposed and at serious risk.
Park Holidays UK, which owns the adjoining caravan park, has recently obtained planning permission to roll back its site, and is in principle prepared to joint-fund a protection scheme, although it emphasises the need for speed in determining any further enabling planning application.
Three issues arise out of the situation at Pakefield. First, since this spring, Coastal Partnership East has not been attending the steering group meetings, as it has no further information or guidance to provide to the community and it is focusing its resources on emergency events such as those at Hemsby. I do not criticise it for doing so, but that illustrates the need for it to be provided with more resources and financial support. Secondly, it is clear that those who have lost their home to the sea are not provided with the appropriate level of compensation and support. Finally, it is concerning that the existing grant funding arrangements for protecting communities from coastal erosion are not working, are not fair and equitable, and need to be reviewed. The current budgeted cost for properly protecting Pakefield is estimated at approximately £11 million, but the flood and coastal erosion risk management grant-in-aid calculator calculates that only £492,000 can be provided towards that.
Kessingland is an example of a highly innovative nature-based scheme, where the parish council, with local landowners and businesses, and the local internal drainage board have worked together successfully. The scheme involves the managed realignment of the coast to create an intertidal habitat in front of new sea walls and a pumping station. The problem that the scheme now faces is that, due to economic pressures beyond the control of the parties, there is now a significant funding shortfall. The scheme has to proceed. If it does not, the A12, which links Lowestoft to Ipswich and beyond, will be flooded on every mean high water spring tide. It should also be pointed out that that road will be used to support the construction of Sizewell C.
I have covered a number of specific local challenges and a wide variety of concerns. I shall now seek to bring matters together with some suggestions as to how the situation can be improved so as to provide coastal communities on the East Anglian coast with the protection and support that they are entitled to expect.
First, I refer to the recommendation in the Tyndall Centre briefing that the specific risks to the region arising from climate change require a scientific, quantitative assessment. I agree with that. We need to know the full extent of the long-term challenge that we face, so that we can pursue a strategic approach rather than a case-by-case crisis management course.
Secondly, much of the work of DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Coastal Partnership East is innovative and forward thinking, but I suggest that the national framework could be improved by giving a specific focus to coastal erosion, as we have touched on. The ministerial responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister include floods, both fluvial and coastal, but coastal flooding and erosion is a very different beast, which requires a bespoke and individual focus. Looking more closely at ministerial responsibilities, he is responsible for floods, but the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is responsible for climate change and adaptation, and my noble Friend Lord Benyon is responsible for green finance. Those three issues are all inextricably connected and intertwined, and they should not be shared out between three Ministers; they should all be under the same roof. Back home in East Anglia, some have suggested that there should be a Minister for the coast. I can see merit in that, but I am mindful that in other cases, the creation of a so-called tsar does not necessarily lead to the solution of a particular problem. Let us get the policies and who is responsible for their implementation right, before we do anything else.
Thirdly, speed is of the essence. The pace of erosion and ensuing risk is far outstripping the ability of Coastal Partnership East and its supporting councils to put together business cases. The coast in Norfolk and Suffolk is experiencing accelerated coastal change, and an emergency package should be made available to support those most at risk, particularly where rehoming those affected by erosion is the only solution.
Fourthly, the capital funding model needs reviewing. From my perspective, the cases at Lowestoft, Kessingland and Pakefield are compelling, and it is perverse that so much lateral thinking has to be applied to get the necessary funding in place. Such a review should include the need to fully incentivise and maximise private sector investment in nature-based solutions.
H. Rider Haggard’s journal notes:
“For generations the sea has been encroaching on this coast”,
the East Anglian coast. It states that since
“the time of Queen Elizabeth”—
meaning Queen Elizabeth I, not Queen Elizabeth II—
“no concerted effort has been made for the common protection.”
Some 130 years later, I suggest that we should correct that omission.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I call the Opposition spokesperson, Emma Hardy. [Interruption.] Well, stand if you want to speak!
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Apologies, Dame Angela. I think that that is called getting to the end of term.
It is something of an honour to stay for the very last debate of 2023, especially as it is so directly relevant and so phenomenally important to my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for doing a fantastic job in securing this debate and shining a light on its subject matter. It is extremely pertinent to my residents and is of growing concern, particularly at the moment.
North Norfolk is an entirely coastal constituency. It encompasses 52 glorious miles of coastline, from Holkham all the way up in the east—sorry, the west; I should know it by now, having been there for four years—all the way down to Horsey in the east. North Norfolk has its own set of pressing and important matters of which the Minister should be aware.
Over the next approximately 85 years, 1,000 homes are said to be at risk in my constituency; of course, that could be inaccurate, but not in a good way. We know that the climate data is getting worse for us all, and that sea levels are rising. The prediction is that 30 cm of sea level rises will occur by the end of the century, and of course the impact of that will almost certainly be that coastal erosion will get far worse. Couple that with materially wetter winters, excess groundwaters, hot, dry summers, particularly like the one we had two years ago, and the ground contracting and expanding, and the impact on our coast is profound.
At the moment we see about 30 cm to 2 metres of erosion each year, but that is not a guide. Even since August, in my constituency, the end of Beach Road in Happisburgh has lost 8 metres alone. A few years ago, sections of my coast vanished at a rate of 13 metres in a month. It is not an exact science, but parts of the coast can be unaffected for years and then suddenly slippages or erosion can happen at alarming rates.
The North Norfolk coast is as varied as it is long. The stretch from Holkham to Weybourne is at flood risk, and that from Weybourne to Happisburgh is affected by erosion at starkly different rates. I live around the Runtons; they are in not too bad a condition in comparison with further east of Cromer, which I understand is rather like something out of a picture postcard for everyone’s holiday—it is the most beautiful area—but the east of Cromer is where constituents are experiencing particular challenges. Villages such as Overstrand, Trimingham, Bacton, Walcott, Mundesley and, of course, Happisburgh are the focus of North Norfolk District Council’s attention at the moment. Extremely careful and sympathetic measures are required to support those communities in the years ahead, and that is where much of the attention in my constituency is focused.
A lot of my residents are probably not aware of how much is being done. I am the first Conservative MP for about 18 and a half years, and we were one of the first places in the entire country, out of only two, to get the snappily titled coastal transition accelerator programme money—CTAP for short. In effect, it was a slug of money—£15 million—from the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), to help plan for the future.
There are, of course, other schemes such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney spoke about in his constituency. There are areas to protect Cromer with rock revetments to the west of the pier, and of course groynes are being refurbished; the same is happening in Mundesley. All in all, we have received about £20 million of funding, which we hope will go some way towards supporting the area for the next 50 years. Importantly, my hon. Friend spoke about how we should go about repairing those things and still investing where appropriate.
Then, of course, there is the multimillion-pound sandscaping scheme around Bacton gas terminal, brought about by Dutch innovation. I have talked about Bacton gas terminal many times in this place because it is an area of critical national infrastructure. The Bacton sandscaping has helped to protect many communities around Walcott and Bacton from the flooding that they experience year after year. As private investment comes in to transition Bacton gas terminal, I hope the sandscaping scheme will continue to be enhanced.
The simple answer is always that we need more money, and factually, from what I understand, the Government have put in record amounts. They have doubled the previous amount to about £5.2 billion look after flooding and other coastal erosion matters; 17% will be spent on areas of the country such as Happisburgh. We also need to have a bit of a grown-up conversation. We need to be able to give people certainty about what they can do, and with better information we can start to paint a picture of how our coast is changing.
Of course, we also need to ensure that any plans we put in place are economically viable, technically feasible and environmentally acceptable. Trying to protect one area along a coastal stretch will have impacts on the neighbouring areas. These things do not exist in isolation, of course; after many years of protecting our coastline we have discovered that they are linked.
It is worth mentioning my hon. Friend’s point about having a Minister for the coast. I do not wish to do him out of a job already, but that was brought up by Norfolk County Council leader Kay Mason Billig, and the environmental portfolio holder, Councillor Eric Vardy, has been fantastic on this. He is an environmentalist who has really spearheaded this issue. I have a lot of sympathy with what they are saying.
The coast of the British Isles is just under 7,000 miles long, and coastal areas share many characteristics. Many suffer rural deprivation and have greater housing challenges. I can talk about the problems that we experience in the particularly idyllic areas around Blakeney till the cows come home, but of course they are mirrored in the south-west and coastal areas of Suffolk. There are greater connectivity problems in every sense—infrastructure, mobile and the like—and a lack of high-skilled employment opportunities. And, of course, there are flooding and coastal erosion matters, so I have a great deal of sympathy with the call for a coastal Minister. Instead of doing nothing about it, on 2 February 2024 at 7 pm, I am holding a major public meeting in Hickling to talk about flooding in and around my constituency.
As I wrap up, which I am keen to do now, I want to say two thank yous. In North Norfolk we have taken this matter very seriously for some years. In no small way that is down to the coastal transition manager at North Norfolk District Council, a gentleman called Rob Goodliffe. It is rare to find people of such ability, knowledge and passion. Mr Goodliffe puts his heart and soul into these matters with the knowledge that he has and, to boot, he is a jolly decent gentleman.
Councillor Angie Fitch-Tillett has for many years been the councillor responsible for Poppyland and looking after the coastal portfolio. She worked alongside Mr Goodliffe and is as passionate as she is knowledgeable. Once again, huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for shining a light on this very important matter.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate and setting out so clearly the case for change. My North West Norfolk constituency has a glorious coastline stretching from the bottom of the Wash up to Hunstanton and its famous striped cliffs, across to Burnham Overy Staithe, before joining the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). However, along that coast we face significant coastal erosion and defence issues that need to be addressed.
This year, we marked 70 years since the terrible 1953 floods, with the tragic loss of many lives in Hunstanton, Snettisham and others parts of the east coast. Earlier this year, I was present at memorial events in Snettisham and other places to mark the anniversary. I came away from all of those with a clear sense that it is our duty as MPs and custodians of our areas to do all that we can to protect our coastline and coastal communities. By taking action we can help to limit and mitigate coastal erosion and its consequences, as set out in the shoreline management plans and the Wash East coastal management strategy.
Today I want to highlight the importance of coastal defences between Snettisham and Heacham, which are made up of a natural sand shingle ridge and stretches of concrete defences. Every year, there is a beach recycling where material is moved to top up the sand and the shingle ridge, which provides a natural flood defence for properties, caravan parks, holiday homes and prime agricultural land. That is an exemplar partnership project and I pay tribute to Mike McDonnell, chairman of the local community interest company that provides nearly 60% of the funding for the annual beach recharge. Only a few weeks ago, he stood on that shingle ridge with me as we met the Environment Agency and other organisations.
We were there to talk about local concern that the periodic beach recharge project, which was expected to take place and involves bringing new material on to the beach, is not happening this year. In part, that is due to an assessment by the Environment Agency of monitoring data that showed that it did not need to happen. However, that was concerning for my constituents and me. I met the Environment Agency because it said that financial and technical constraints meant that the measure was considered undeliverable in any case. The forecast costs had, for example, increased from £3 million to £8 million. However, given that the Environment Agency has £5.2 million for flooding and coastal erosion projects, it is not acceptable that those costs might prevent doing what is necessary and what is set out in the plans to defend against coastal erosion.
The Environment Agency’s assessment means that further work is now under way to consider how to protect the coastline, as well as the approach set out in the Wash East coast management strategy. My constituents, the county councillors, the borough councillors and I are in no doubt that protecting the coastline is vital. However, as King’s Lynn and West Norfolk local councillor group leaders highlighted in a recent letter to the Secretary of State, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has highlighted, the funding threshold for coastal defences does not give due importance to the damage to internationally renowned sites of special scientific interest, which I am lucky to have in my constituency, and to habitats, agricultural land or vital tourism. That approach clearly needs to be revised and reformed.
It should be a common cause that a managed retreat for loss of land is not acceptable in North West Norfolk. We need to hold the line. As I stood on the beach looking at the homes, the Environment Agency representatives assured me and others that they were committed to long-term coastal defence measures. In his letter last week responding to council leaders, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred to the Environment Agency providing
“assurances to the community that the management of this coastline is a high priority.”
So it must be. The Government must ensure that funding and support are in place for the shoreline management plan strategy for 2025 and onwards. We need to do everything we can to protect North West Norfolk’s coastal environment.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Before I bring in the Opposition spokesperson, I should let the remaining speakers know that I intend to call Peter Aldous to respond to the debate at 28 minutes past 5. Bear that in mind, please.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is, as always, a very real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Angela. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate and, as always, offering a thoughtful and considered contribution. He may not know this, but I always think of him quite fondly, because he was the first person that I ever intervened on in a Westminster Hall debate, so I am pleased to respond to him in a slightly different role.
I also thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) for highlighting the number of homes at risk and emphasising the need for certainty when it comes to climate risk. I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for emphasising the importance of coastal defences and the need to allocate money effectively. I also have to mention the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis), because I had a wonderful holiday in his constituency in summer 2020, when we were unable to go abroad. I had a wonderful time in Great Yarmouth; it is a place I think of fondly.
I recently watched an ITV piece about the flooding situation in the area, and I want to quote from it to emphasise the human cost of coastal erosion and flooding. I should also mention that the issue is very personal to me: I represent Hull, which is at risk from various types of flooding, and am an east coast MP, so I am unfortunately very familiar with coastal erosion and flooding. I quote the piece:
“When Carol Boyes retired to Hemsby with her late husband 20 years ago, she couldn’t see the sea. There were two rows of bungalows in front of her. Now, it’s approaching her doorstep. The road outside is collapsing, much of it lies smashed on the beach. At 78, Carol will soon be homeless.”
It is worth highlighting that human cost. Flooding and coastal erosion are personal: we are talking about people losing their businesses and their homes, and I want to recognise that. My heart goes out to all those who are devastated by coastal erosion and tidal surges.
Sir Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a hugely important human aspect to this issue. Having been to the area and met residents who are losing their properties, I could not help but be moved by the tragedy of what they are facing. Does the hon. Lady also agree that there is an onus and requirement on private landowners? That is one of the complications in Hemsby: the Geoffrey Watling Trust is not doing anything to protect the road that it owns, on its property, to help residents such as those the hon. Lady mentions. The council is doing great work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) outlined, other organisations are working very hard, but we also need private landowners to step up and do the right thing to help those people.
Emma Hardy
I agree that this has to be a group effort. Whether they are private landowners, the public sector or the individual people living there, everybody stands to gain from protecting properties, so it has to be a group effort.
Because the issue is so personal and means so much to people, it is disappointing that the Government have not made a priority of it. I recognise that the Minister is fairly new, but part of the reason for the lack of priority is the number of fairly new Ministers that have been looking at this area. That lack of priority means that communities are now paying the price: 203,000 properties that have already had flood protection face an increased risk because of a £34-million shortfall in the Environment Agency’s maintenance funding for 2023. I mention that because maintenance has already come up in the debate. The Environment Agency actually has the funding, and there was an underspend, but the National Audit Office report stated that, because of Treasury rules, that money could not be allocated to maintenance. That seems to be an immediate solution that the Minister could offer. Does the Minister know what has happened to the 4,200 flood defences that have been rated as poor or very poor? Does he know how many defences have been damaged by Storms Babet and Ciarán, and will he update us on what is happening with those? As has been mentioned, we have had a problem in this area for over 100 years, but we still have yet to have a solution offered by the Government.
I have personally heard concerns about the situation in the Pakefield area of Lowestoft from Councillor Peter Byatt and Jess Asato, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Lowestoft. Councillor Byatt told me that although some work has been done, without emergency funding being released to provide the required coastal armour, they face the real prospects of losing around 30 homes, as well as more of the caravan park, which is a vital part of their local economy. Jess told me that the Government have been warned about this for years, so she was incredibly frustrated for residents who feel they are being left to the mercy of the waves.
Coastal communities collectively perform poorly on the Government’s chosen matrix for levelling-up funding. Again, the solution does not involve offering more money; it is about the formula used to allocate money. The investment criteria for round 3 of the levelling-up fund does not include standalone coastal defence schemes that are not part of a wider transport regeneration or culture bid. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to change the formula for the levelling-up bid, so that areas like all those mentioned could bid for that money for coastal defences?
The Environment Agency’s funding formula to protect communities does not consider the cost of flooding to hospitality and tourism industries. That point was raised by one of the Conservative Members. It is allocated on the basis of homes, not businesses. That is something on which many coastal communities rely heavily. Coastal communities are missing out on two different funding matrices. They miss out on being able to access the levelling-up money and the Environment Agency’s funding formula.
To answer the question, “What will Labour do?”, which I am sure is on the tip of everyone’s tongue, Labour will establish a flood resilience taskforce, which will meet every winter ahead of the peak season for extreme weather. This COBRA-style taskforce will co-ordinate flooding and coastal erosion preparation by central Government, local authorities, local communities and the emergency services. It will ensure that vulnerable areas are identified. The need for mapping, to understand climate change and to identify where the risk is, was raised by a number of Conservative Members, and I completely agree. Not only do we need to identify those areas, we need a plan for how we will protect them.
The taskforce will work closely with the Environment Agency to ensure that its formula to protect communities considers potential damages to hospitality and tourist attractions when looking at what it protects, not just homes as is currently the case. It will be chaired by a DEFRA Minister and bring together senior civil servants and Ministers across Government. Although sadly I cannot offer hon. Members a Minister for the coast, I will instead offer a Minister for resilience, who will sit in the Cabinet Office. The taskforce will also bring together regional flood and coastal communities and other frontline agencies, including the Environment Agency and the fire service. That Minister for resilience will look not only at coastal erosion and flooding, but at all the other issues that are the natural result of climate change. Our flood resilience taskforce will play a vital role in identifying and protecting vulnerable areas. Under a Labour Government, places such as Hemsby, with the significant contribution it makes to the local economy through tourism, would have greater eligibility for funding for flood and coastal defences.
As I have mentioned, it is not a matter of getting the cheque book out and committing more money. The Government have committed more than £5 billion for flood and coastal defences by 2027. Labour’s plans are about ensuring that the budget already committed to flood defences is used to maximum effect in places such as Hemsby and Pakefield. We also understand that local authorities, in their role as risk-managing authorities, do not receive maintenance funding to support flood defences in the same way the Environment Agency does. The preferred option in the shoreline management plan for Suffolk in the case of Pakefield cliffs is, as has been mentioned, to hold the line. However, there is no long-term plan effectively to manage or finance that. The Government are dodging their responsibility to the people of Lowestoft and all coastal communities where this pattern is repeated time and again. That is why our flood resilience taskforce would ensure that existing funding is properly targeted to the areas in need, and it would provide accountability on the delivery of projects to ensure that they happen on time. While we must, of course, do everything we can to protect existing properties, we must equally ensure that none are built where they will soon face that threat as sea levels rise. As the Minister knows, a local planning authority can designate areas that are at risk from coastal change—in other words, erosion or induration—as coastal change management areas to ensure that there is control over future development. However, in a reply to a written question in October last year, I was informed:
“Neither Defra or the Environment Agency maintain”
any
“record of the number of CCMAs”.
That was still the case when I asked again. If they did, they would know—this is quite shocking—that only 15% of coastal planning authorities have a designated coastal change management area. That means that, for the majority of our coast, there is no plan to manage coastal erosion or the changes happening to it.
My understanding—I have just double-checked this, but correct me if I am wrong—is that there is no coastal change management area covering South Suffolk, but that there is one for North Norfolk. That is extremely worrying. A study by the University of Plymouth found that vulnerable coastal areas have been omitted from coastal change management areas and that only a third of areas that have been designated directly as coastal change management areas aid the coastal community to adapt to future sea level rise and coastal change. What that all basically means is that there is no plan to manage coastal erosion and change for most of our coast, and the Government are not even aware of where there is a plan. Their answer to the written questions was that they have no idea what is happening to plan for change all around our coast. What is the Minister doing to ensure that all coastal planning authorities have a coastal change management area plan?
The situation shows, again, that the Government are asleep at the wheel. They are too distracted by their internal family bickering and are failing the coastal communities of the present and the future. The systems that cause sea level rise—specifically, the thermal expansion of the ocean and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets due to global heating—have a centuries-long time lag. Increased coastal erosion and flooding are here to stay. We need a strategy and a long-term plan to deal with their effects and to support our communities. Only Labour has the plan and the will to do that.
On that promise of a brighter future, at this Christmas time, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and new year. I say thanks to all of the staff and the Doorkeepers. Hopefully, it will be a much brighter and more prosperous 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate. It is good to see so many colleagues joining him in the House to make their very valid cases. I am particularly pleased to hold the role of Minister with responsibility for flooding, having worked as a rural practice surveyor before entering this House and having visited many of the locations that have been mentioned, not only in Norfolk, but in Suffolk, and particularly the Holderness coast; I am very familiar with some of the challenges there. I am very interested in this brief and very keen to take it forward.
I recognise the challenges that many of my hon. Friends’ constituents—households and businesses—face, and, of course, this is deeply concerning to all who experience coastal flooding and erosion events. Events like the storms this autumn put into focus the need for many of us to adapt to the threats that we face from climate change and the resulting impacts, such as coastal erosion. I understand the impact that those experiences have on people, whether that is through damage to or loss of property or through the impact on their businesses and livelihoods and how that can affect their wellbeing.
As climate change leads to sea level rise and more extreme rainfall, the number of people who are at risk from flooding and coastal erosion is, unfortunately, likely to grow. That is why it is absolutely important that we have debates such as this, where specific cases can be raised, in addition to the conversations that my Department and I are involved in.
The impact of the recent storms on coastal communities such as those at Lowestoft, Pakefield and Kessingland on the Suffolk coast, as well as—as has been mentioned—on communities on the Norfolk coast, such as at Hemsby, has brought this issue into sharp focus. That is why the Government are acting to drive down flood risk and to support those who are at risk from coastal erosion from every single angle.
I will come to some of the specific points on which we are focusing. Our long-term policy statement, published in 2020, sets out our ambition to
“create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk.”
It includes five ambitious policies and a number of actions that will accelerate progress to 2027 and beyond to better protect and prepare the country against flooding and coastal erosion in the face of more frequent and extreme weather events, as right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. That is why we continue to invest public money in this important area.
As part of our commitment to ensuring that the country is resilient to climate change, including flooding and coastal erosion, we are now two years into a significant package of investment—£5.2 billion has been specifically allocated to flood and coastal erosion for a six-year investment programme. In that time, we have already invested £1.5 billion to better protect more than 67,000 homes and businesses in England alone. That takes the total number of properties protected to more than 380,000 since 2015, and more than 600,000 since 2010. That £5.2 billion of investment is double the £2.6 billion investment from the previous funding round, which ran from 2015 to 2021.
With double the investment, we will continue to build on past achievements and experiences, and improve resilience, specifically on coastal erosion. We recognise that there are still specific challenges ahead for some of our communities. Coastal erosion is a long-standing process, which is a natural event. From my experience on the Holderness coast, we see coastal erosion happening constantly. As we have heard, that also occurs along the coastal communities of Norfolk and Suffolk.
Coastal erosion is the natural way that coasts evolve over time. That is why it is right to have specific conversations about better protecting particular communities. Local shoreline management plans have a vital role in managing our coastline. Importantly, they are locally developed by coastal protection authorities and coastal groups, which agree on the approach to managing each section of the coastline in their areas. Based on evidence, they decide whether we hold the line or manage realignment of the coastline, where it is appropriate to do so.
The Environment Agency supports those authorities to update and strengthen the plans by early 2024 through technical refresh projects to ensure that they are up to date, use the best evidence in their recommendations and focus attention on priority areas for investment and adaptation. More than £2 million will be used for that project, which includes the development of new digital, online tools to assess access, understanding and use of the plans, which will launch early next year.
The SMPs will be supported by the most up-to-date evidence on coastal erosion, through the Environment Agency-led national coastal erosion risk map, which provides a consistent assessment of coastal erosion risk around England. The Environment Agency is working with coastal authorities on updating that risk mapping, which will be published by mid-2024, to inform coastal erosion management planning and investment decisions.
We are supporting local communities who wish to test and trial new approaches to manage the impact of coastal erosion around the country, through our £200 million flood and coastal innovation programme. Through that programme, DEFRA has provided £8.4 million of funding to East Suffolk Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council for the resilient coasts project.
My hon. Friend has some specific challenges in his constituency, as he mentioned, which is why the rapid deployment plan for Lowestoft has recently been scoped out, as he will be aware. Not only has he secured this debate, but he has caught me in the House, since I have taken on this role, specifically to talk to me about the projects that are being rolled out in Lowestoft and the other communities he mentioned. The resilient coasts project will offer a complete suite of planning, engagement, technical and financial tools to support coastal transition for communities. The learning will be shared with other coastal authorities and could also be applied to the rest of the UK. DEFRA has allocated £38 million from the £200 million flood and coastal innovation programme to the coastal transition accelerator programme to trial opportunities in a small number of areas significant to coastal erosion.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) specifically picked up on that point because, as the first Conservative Member for a significant period to hold that constituency, he has successfully managed to secure his constituency shoreline as one of the two places where the project is now under way. I commend his efforts in doing that, because as he mentioned, Coastwise offers a unique opportunity to support adaptation and the transition from a reactive, unplanned approach to coastal management challenges. Importantly, these approaches involve trials that will provide new evidence of how coastal adaptation can be achieved, in order to truly inform national coastal management policy.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Mr Goodliffe and Councillor Angie Fitch-Tillett for the work they have been doing on this issue. The aim of the programme is to act as a catalyst for strategic long-term planning and to test out innovative practical actions to support the coastal communities at risk from coastal erosion. I expect coastal authorities to use this opportunity to plan for and enable co-ordinated transition activities that take a proactive approach to meeting their immediate and future needs, in advance of coastal change.
Let me pick up on some of the other points that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made. I want to reassure him that some parts of the Lowestoft project are already under way, as he will know. Of course, there is further work to do, and further discussions are taking place in the Department about that project. I know that he has written and raised this not only with me, but with the Secretary of State. Further discussions will take place about this issue, and I will be happy to meet with him on it.
My hon. Friend made the point that green finance, flooding and climate change are split between portfolios. However, I want to reassure him that all Ministers in the Department work closely together. There is no silo mentality in DEFRA.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk rightly referred to a letter that I wrote to Councillor Terry Parish recently. If he wishes, I would be happy to pick that up with him. I also want to reassure him that the Environment Agency is working with me and the Department to ensure that these schemes are rolled out in the right way.
Let me be clear: we will continue to improve the resilience of our villages, towns and cities to ensure that future flooding and coastal erosion is addressed, which will be helped by the outputs of our flood and coastal innovation programme. I commend the work of Coastal Partnership East, which hon. Members have mentioned, and also the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney in securing this debate, because this is an incredibly important issue that needs to be raised. I look forward to working with him to address it further, not only in his constituency but across Norfolk and Suffolk.
Peter Aldous
I will be brief; we have had a comprehensive debate. Coastal Partnership East is adopting the strategic approach that we need, and it is important that Government and DEFRA support it in all that it does. We can predict what is going to happen; it is the speed at which it is happening that is catching us all unawares. From that perspective, Coastal Partnership East needs an emergency package to get it through this really challenging period. We must then get away from crisis management and move to the more strategic, scientific, qualitative approach that the Tyndall centre is proposing.
My final point is that, as we have heard, we in the east are very important for the tourism and leisure industries, for food production and processing, and, increasingly, for providing nationally and strategically important infrastructure, whether that means wind farms, the Bacton gas terminal or Sizewell C. The Government need to have that in mind.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Just before I end the session, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a safe journey home.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered coastal erosion in Suffolk and Norfolk.
Written Statements
India Trade Negotiations
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The 13th round of UK-India free trade agreement negotiations began on 18 September and concluded on 15 December. During the round, negotiations took place in both London and Delhi in a hybrid fashion. As with round 12, negotiations in this round were focused on issues including goods, services and investment.
The UK-India trade relationship was worth £38.3 billion in the 12 months to June 2023. A balanced deal that respects the domestic sensitives of both sides will strengthen the economic links between the UK and India, and can boost the UK economy and bring benefits to UK businesses, families and consumers.
We will not compromise on our high environmental and labour protections, public health, animal welfare and food standards, and we will maintain our right to regulate in the public interest. We are also clear that in this negotiation, as with all our FTA negotiations, the NHS and the services it provides are not on the table. Any agreement will be consistent with the points-based immigration system, and there are no plans to change our immigration policy.
The UK and India will continue to negotiate towards a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement. The 14th round of negotiations will take place in January 2024.
The Government will continue to keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
[HCWS160]
Post Office Ltd: Horizon Compensation Funding
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
In October, I announced that the Government intend to provide additional funding to Post Office to meet the costs of participating in the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and delivering compensation to postmasters. These activities are part of Post Office’s response to the Horizon IT scandal, which arose following the installation of the Horizon software in the late 1990s. I also announced that the Government intend to provide additional funding to help with the development of the replacement for the Horizon IT system and to ensure Horizon is maintained while that replacement is rolled out.
In accordance with the Subsidy Control Act 2022, the Department for Business and Trade’s assessment of the funding’s compliance with the subsidy control principles was subject to referral to the Subsidy Advice Unit. A report for each referral was published by the Subsidy Advice Unit, which concluded that the Department had
“conducted an assessment which considers the subsidy’s compliance with the subsidy control principles in line with the Statutory Guidance”.
The reports for both the inquiry and compensation delivery subsidy and the IT subsidy can be found at https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/referral-of-the-proposed-subsidy-to-post-office-limited-by-the-department-for-business-and-trade#final-report
and https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/referral-of-the-proposed-subsidy-post-office-it-interim-funding-by-the-department-for-business-and-trade respectively.
In October, I committed to confirm final levels of funding to the House at the earliest opportunity. Following the publication of the reports by the Subsidy Advice Unit and the conclusion of the subsequent “cooling off” period, I can now confirm that the Department for Business and Trade has agreed to provide £150 million to Post Office for inquiry and compensation delivery costs and £103 million for IT costs in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years.
[HCWS155]
Maritime Update
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
I would like to provide an update on the maritime security situation in the Red sea.
Global trade relies on the free flow of commerce around the world—free from intimidation and malice. The UK has been at the forefront of ensuring freedom of navigation around the world; this is rooted in our history and our belief in the rules-based order that provides opportunity for all.
In recent weeks we have seen an escalation in attacks against innocent maritime shipping in the Red sea, with 14 ships being attacked so far. These not only pose a risk to life to the merchant sailors on board, but are a clear menace to global commerce. Small groups must not hold international trade hostage through their hostile acts. Houthi capabilities include anti-ship ballistic missiles, which are capable of sinking ships and killing crew. This has international ramifications and we should be clear-eyed about the risks to life, regional economics and global prosperity. Unprovoked Houthi attacks are having a major impact, with a number of shipping companies already announcing a pause on passage through the Red sea.
More than 10% of the world’s merchant vessels pass through the narrow Bab al-Mandab strait in the Red sea, including tankers carrying much of the UK’s supply of liquefied natural gas. Around 50 large merchant ships each day pass through this channel. It is a critical artery for the world’s trade. These Houthi attacks could result in rising oil prices, a stranglehold on international commerce and increasing costs that will affect the whole international community, as well as the flagrant and intolerable risk to human life. The recent attack on the Red Ensign MV Swan Atlantic demonstrates the seriousness of the issue.
This an international problem that requires an international solution. Houthi maritime attacks will continue without a clear international response. It is in the interests of the global economy that we work with allies and partners to address this unacceptable situation.
I am proud that the UK has joined with key international allies in Operation Prosperity Guardian, a US-led international operation established to protect freedom of navigation throughout the Red sea and Gulf of Aden. Following my instructions, HMS Diamond has deployed to the area and has already shot down an unmanned aerial vehicle as part of this endeavour. This is the first surface-to-air engagement by a UK Royal Navy vessel since 1991. We will not stand idly by when the prosperity of us all is at risk. HMS Lancaster is also in the region to assist.
[HCWS163]
Dedicated Schools Grant and Pupil Premium
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
Today the Department for Education has published local authorities’ dedicated schools grant (DSG) allocations for schools, high needs and early years revenue funding for 2024-25, as well as confirming schools’ pupil premium funding rates for 2024-25.
Core schools funding in England will increase by over £1.8 billion in 2024-25 compared to the previous financial year. This follows the 16% increase (over £7.9 billion) in funding from 2021-22 to 2023-24. School funding will be at its highest ever level in real terms per pupil by 2024-25, totalling over £59.6 billion.
Together, these publications confirm the funding increases that each local authority will see next financial year, reflecting the investment made in our education system in the 2021 spending review and the subsequent additional funding announced in last year’s autumn statement.
Mainstream school funding in the DSG will increase nationally by 2% per pupil in 2024-25, compared to 2023-24. Including the additional funding for teachers’ pay, overall mainstream schools funding will increase by 2.6%. This follows the 5.6% year-on-year per-pupil increase we delivered in 2023-24.
The extra funding we announced in July to support mainstream and special schools with the costs of the 2023 teachers’ pay award will continue to be provided alongside, and in addition to, the DSG in 2024-25.
High needs funding will increase to over £10.5 billion in 2024-25, a 4.3% increase compared to this year and an increase of over 60% over the past 5 years. Every local authority will receive an increase in funding of at least 3% per head of its population aged two to 18. This will help local authorities and schools with the costs of supporting children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities.
Pupil premium funding will rise to over £2.9 billion in 2024-25, an increase of £80 million from 2023-24. This represents a 10% increase in per-pupil rates from 2021-22 to 2024-25.
The indicative allocations for early years revenue funding in 2024-25 total £6.1 billion. These include funding for the expanded offers for eligible children aged two and under.
The dedicated schools grant allocations will be made available today at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dedicated-schools-grant-dsg-2024-to-2025.
[HCWS157]
Gender Questioning Children: Consultation on Guidance for Schools and Colleges
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I have been working closely with the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), on guidance for schools and colleges where a child is questioning their gender. Schools and colleges have been left in a position where they are having to navigate this highly sensitive, complex issue, which is still not properly understood. We appreciate how daunting this is for school and college staff and for parents and children too. The aim of the guidance is to provide clarity for schools and colleges, and reassurance for parents. We will be today publishing the draft guidance for consultation.
The guidance covers how schools and colleges should respond when parents and children ask them to accommodate a child who is questioning their gender. This has been linked to gender identity ideology: the belief that a person can have a “gender”, whether male (or “man”), female (or “woman”), or “other”, that is different to their biological sex. Such accommodation may mean a request to take actions such as changing names or uniforms, or using different facilities to help a child appear more like they are the opposite sex, with the expectation that they will be treated as if they are. This is often referred to as social transitioning.
This guidance is based on a set of five general principles that schools and colleges can use to frame their response to such requests.
Schools and colleges have statutory duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. They should consider how best to fulfil that duty towards the child who is making such a request and their peers, ensuring that any agreed course of action is in all of their best interests. This may or may not be the same as a child’s wishes. Knowing a child’s sex is critical to a school’s or college’s safeguarding duties.
Schools and colleges should be respectful and tolerant places where bullying is never tolerated. Staff and children should treat each other with compassion and consideration, in accordance with the ethos of the school or college.
Parents should not be excluded from decisions taken by a school or college relating to requests for a child to “socially transition”. Where a child requests action from a school or college in relation to any degree of social transition, schools and colleges should engage parents as a matter of priority, and encourage the child to speak to their parents, other than in the exceptionally rare circumstances where involving parents would constitute a significant risk of harm to the child.
Schools and colleges have specific legal duties that are framed by a child’s biological sex. While legislation exists that allows adults to go through a process to change their legal sex, children’s legal sex is always the same as their biological sex.
There is no general duty to allow a child to “social transition”. The Cass review’s interim report is clear that social transition is not a neutral act, and that better information is needed about the outcomes for children who undertake degrees of social transition. If a school decides to accommodate a request, a cautious approach should be taken that complies with legal duties. Some forms of social transition will not be compatible with a school’s statutory responsibilities.
Dr Cass is clear that social transition is not a neutral act, and that better information is needed about the outcomes for children who undertake degrees of social transition. This means that schools and colleges should take a cautious approach and that decisions should not be taken in haste or without the involvement of parents.
We are now consulting on this guidance and welcome responses from the likes of parents, teachers, headteachers, pupils and clinicians. Nothing is more important than keeping children safe and I am grateful to all those who will help us to get this right.
We are also aware that many schools and colleges have commenced their Christmas break this week and so there is no immediate action to be taken now. We welcome their engagement and responses to the consultation from the new year. The consultation will run for 12 weeks and will close on 12 March 2024.
A copy of the guidance will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS154]
Government Offer to NHS Specialist, Associate Specialist and Specialty Doctors
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
After seven weeks of constructive negotiations with the British Medical Association specialist, associate specialist and specialty doctors committee, I am pleased to inform the House that on 16 December, I made a formal reform-based offer that the BMA SAS committee has agreed to put to its members for a vote.
No strikes will be called by these doctors while the deal is being put to members.
SAS doctors are a vital part of the NHS. They focus predominantly on providing direct patient care by providing clinical expertise in their specialist area and taking responsibility for a full range of patients within their area of practice, making them essential to our efforts to cut waiting lists and deliver the highest quality service to patients.
In 2021, the Government agreed a multi-year deal with the BMA SAS committee. If accepted, this offer will: address the unintended imbalances in the pay scales for these doctors on the 2021 contract and pre-2021 contracts to ensure consistency and fairness across the workforce; speed up the delivery of some of the key objectives of the 2021 deal, such as the roll-out of the new specialist grade; and encourage more existing doctors to take up the new contracts, which offer modernised terms and conditions.
The offer includes plans to set up a £5 million funding pot to encourage and support NHS employers to create more permanent specialist roles where there is a need. This will fund a significant increase in the number of specialist doctors, improving patient care and access, and will create further opportunities for doctors to progress in their careers.
A joint piece of work will also be undertaken to consider how locally employed doctors—doctors who are employed on local terms and conditions as opposed to national—can be better supported to progress in their careers, including the development of a potential process whereby such doctors operating at specialty level for 24 months could be transferred to a specialty contract.
The Government have made further commitments on career development, including the promotion of job planning for all such doctors; the development of guidance to support the career development of SAS doctors; the development of guidance for employers to encourage, establish and embed specialist roles in their organisation; and a research project to understand why specialist roles are not being created.
Both the Government and the BMA SAS committee engaged constructively and in good faith to identify fixes and reforms that address important concerns for SAS doctors. This offer is independent of the headline pay uplift that SAS doctors have already been awarded in 2023-24 through the Government’s acceptance of the independent pay review body’s recommendations.
The BMA SAS committee will now make arrangements to put this offer to a vote of its members in the coming weeks. I encourage them to accept this offer, and I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS162]
UK-US Data Access Agreement: First Year of Use
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
The first duty of any Government is to keep the United Kingdom and its people safe. As the Department responsible for public safety and national security, one of our key priorities is ensuring our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have access to the tools, capabilities and data they need to ensure public safety. The groundbreaking UK-US data access agreement (“the agreement”) is one of these tools.
The agreement allows UK agencies to submit requests for content of communications directly to communications service providers, including social media platforms and messaging services, located in the United States. This must be for the purpose of investigating, preventing, detecting, and prosecuting serious crime. This has allowed our agencies access to more data, more quickly than ever before.
Since the agreement entered into force in October 2022, the UK has made more than 10,000 requests to these US companies. All of these requests have provided UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies with critical data to tackle the most serious crimes facing UK citizens including terrorism; child sexual exploitation; drug trafficking; and organised crime.
The direct benefits derived from data provided under the agreement to UK agencies have been across the full spectrum of serious crime. This has included:
identifying the location of illegal firearms suppliers and their locations for storing weapons. This led to arrests and also the seizure of cash and heroin found at the same site;
supporting high-priority child sexual exploitation investigations, which has resulted in the safeguarding of vulnerable children from harm and the arrest of those suspected of committing offences against children;
providing UK law enforcement with the information to locate and arrest an individual suspected of murder who had been attempting to abscond from the UK;
identifying a boat being used to traffic class A drugs, leading to the seizure of over 1.5 tonnes of class A drugs;
enabling the investigation of an organised crime group engaged in the laundering of cash obtained through the sale of non duty-paid alcohol in the UK; and
advancing broader law enforcement operations linked to preventing gang violence and the purchase and supply of illegal firearms.
These outcomes would not have been possible without the critical data provided under the agreement.
It is clear that the access to data the agreement provides is crucial in protecting our children and the wider public from harm. My officials will continue to work closely with operational partners over the coming years to maximise the benefits the agreement provides and ensure His Majesty’s Government are able to continue to protect the public and keep the country safe. I also welcome continued engagement and support from the communications service providers on this important issue.
[HCWS152]
Crown Dependencies: Beneficial Ownership Transparency
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Illicit finance is an active and growing threat to the national security of the UK family. As set out earlier this year in the UK’s second economic crime plan, illicit finance fuels serious and organised crime, threatens our institutions, and enables kleptocrats to establish a financial foothold. That is why in 2016, the UK set up our own publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, the people with significant control (PSCs) register, which was the first of its kind in the world. Seven years later, many other countries and jurisdictions around the world have joined us.
We are still working with others to achieve this aim. The UK and Crown dependencies (CDs) have a history of working together as partners to strengthen our economic defences against illicit finance. Publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership are an essential tool in this fight.
In 2019, the Bailiwick of Jersey, Bailiwick of Guernsey and Isle of Man (the Crown dependencies) committed to implement publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in line with the principles adopted by the European Union.
In December 2022, following the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the CDs issued a statement announcing that they were pausing work on their public commitments while they sought legal advice.
According to Transparency International, 14 EU member states have maintained public access to their beneficial ownership registers. Gibraltar has also maintained a publicly accessible beneficial ownership register since 2020 and has not noted any negative economic impacts resulting from the implementation of its public register. The UK is satisfied with the lawfulness of our own publicly accessible registers and continues to believe that the CDs could legally implement public registers of their own.
The Home Office has been actively engaging the CDs to understand their position. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) set out in the Backbench Business debate on 7 December, there have been discussions with the CDs on providing access to beneficial ownership information to those with a legitimate interest, such as media and civil society organisations who are involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering.
Legitimate interest access would bring the CDs into line with the EU, where the CJEU judgment notes that EU member states must continue to enable access to those with “legitimate interest”. For the CDs to implement legitimate interest access would be a very significant step forward in beneficial ownership transparency and improve the security of the UK and the wider British family. Nevertheless, the UK Government are still committed to publicly accessible registers becoming the global norm.
The Home Office has made our expectations clear that the CDs should implement registers with legitimate interest access in the coming year. On 13 December, the CDs published their commitments on beneficial ownership transparency.
The CDs state that they will deliver obliged entity access—such as financial services businesses and certain other businesses in their jurisdictions who are required to conduct due diligence—during 2024. I consider that delivering obliged entity access across the CDs has been slower than it should be, given the need to protect our financial institutions from use by hostile states, terrorists and criminals. This recognition of commitment is still welcome.
I welcome the CDs’ press release, stating their commitment to developing and delivering legitimate interest access to their beneficial ownership registers, confirming that access to the information on their registers
“will be extended to include those media and civil society organisations who can demonstrate a legitimate interest in accessing relevant information in order to combat financial crime”.
I look forward to seeing this commitment being adopted by the appropriate CD Parliaments.
The CDs have said that their definition of legitimate interest access will be developed having due regard to international good practice, including finalisation of the EU’s sixth anti-money laundering directive (6AMLD) which is anticipated in early 2024, as well as in line with relevant European judgments such as the 2022 CJEU ruling. The CDs also note that the EU negotiating text for 6AMLD recognises groups who may have a legitimate interest as being those
“conducting business transactions, civil society, journalists, law enforcement and higher education”.
The CDs state that they will present proposals to their Parliaments for agreement on the definition and implementation of legitimate interest by Q4 2024 at the latest. Given that the original commitments were made in 2019 and the increasing use of finance to co-ordinate action against the interests of the British people and the wider British family, this is not the pace that I expect, and I urge the CDs to work as quickly as possible next year to implement these commitments. Parliament will wish to consider these commitments and closely monitor the situation.
[HCWS151]
Chief Coroner’s Eighth and Ninth Annual Reports to the Lord Chancellor
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I am pleased to lay and publish the Chief Coroner’s combined eighth and ninth annual reports to the Lord Chancellor on the operation of coroner services under section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”). The joint report covers both 2021 and 2022.
The joint report has been produced to cover the crucial work done across the coroner service, and by the Chief Coroner himself, during the latter part of the pandemic period and thereafter to support recovery plans. It also provides an opportunity to align the reporting cycle with the preceding calendar year and, therefore, with related reporting processes such as the annual coroner statistics publication.
In particular, the Chief Coroner’s report sets out:
The work that he, as well as coroners, their officers and their staff have undertaken to manage the effects of the covid-19 pandemic;
The continuing work to promote consistency in the resourcing of, and practices in, coroner’s offices across England and Wales;
The training and guidance that coroners and their officers have received, and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders; and
Recommendations to improve coroner services further.
The annex to the report sets out, for 2021 and 2022, the number of cases by coroner area that have lasted over 12 months.
I am very grateful to His Honour Judge Thomas Teague KC for the work he has done over the reporting period in guiding and supporting coroners through the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic, building on the work of his predecessor, His Honour Judge Mark Lucraft KC. I am particularly grateful for his work with local coroner areas on the post-pandemic recovery of the coroner system.
I am grateful, too, to all coroners, and their officers and other staff, for supporting the Chief Coroner and HM Government to improve services for the bereaved, and for their valued frontline work.
The report will be available online, at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-coroners-combined-annual-reports-2021-to-2022.
[HCWS158]
Freeports Delivery Road Map
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the Freeports Delivery Road Map, a cross-Government blueprint for accelerating and amplifying the delivery of our flagship freeports programme.
Building on recent successes for the freeports programme—including the announcement that nearly £3 billion has already been invested in freeports, creating over 6,000 jobs—the road map sets out a range of areas in which Departments will go further in supporting freeports to create investable sites, land investment, and build clusters and durable local economic growth. It therefore focuses on all stages of freeport delivery, from securing investment to translating this into tangible, positive impacts for local communities.
This is on top of the recent announcement of an extension of the window to claim tax reliefs in English freeports, from five to 10 years (subject to the agreement of delivery plans with each freeport), and a new £150 million investment opportunity fund to support investment zones and freeports across the UK to secure business investment opportunities.
The Government will also work with the devolved Administrations to agree how the 10-year window to claim reliefs can be extended to freeports in Scotland and Wales.
In sum, the Government are backing freeports: we are doing everything in our power to deliver these new clusters in sectors of the future, thereby creating sustainable, high-quality jobs for communities across the UK.
I will place a copy of the Freeports Delivery Road Map in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS159]
Intergovernmental Relations Quarterly Transparency Report: 1 July to 30 September
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Today, the Government published the third quarterly report for 2023 of our engagement with the devolved Administrations on gov.uk.
This report covers the engagement between the UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive between 1 July and 30 September 2023. During this reporting period the Administrations worked together on a number of key areas, such as energy security, preparations for COP28 and continued support for the NHS. This reporting continues to highlight how, through our collective work, we demonstrate a stronger ability to face and tackle the big challenges.
The report is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to transparency of intergovernmental relations to Parliament and the public. The Government will continue with publications to demonstrate transparency in intergovernmental relations.
A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS156]
Long-term Plan for Housing: Next Stage
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
This Government are committed to building more homes, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. The best way to deliver is through a reformed planning system. Today we lay out our plan for reform. It is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and assets that matter most, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered. Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, hospitals and GP centres, schools, power grid connections and more—laying foundations for the country’s economic growth and the levelling up of communities for decades to come.
Too many local authorities have no up-to-date plan, too many take too long to get their plan in place and too many plans do not deliver as they should. Even when plans are in place, too many local authorities take too long to determine applications, too many reject proposals that are in line with their policies and officers’ recommendations, and too many fail to ensure a proper pipeline of housing delivery.
Where plans are not in place, or not working effectively, communities are unprotected from speculative development. Houses still get built, but too often in inappropriate locations, too slowly and without the right infrastructure or community assets in place.
That serves no one well. Communities do not have control. Developers do not have certainty. Homes for the next generation do not get built at the rate, or in the locations, we need.
This Government have a coherent, holistic, long-term reform programme to ensure the planning system at last delivers as it should.
Today’s update to the national planning policy framework (NPPF) addresses the concerns expressed by local elected representatives about weaknesses in the planning system that led to frustrations about the nature of development. It provides clearer protection for the green belt, clarity on how future housing supply should be assessed in plans, certainty on the responsibility of urban authorities to play their full part in meeting housing need, and protections for the character of precious neighbourhoods, safeguarding the gentle density of suburbs and ensuring family homes are there for the next generation.
These changes meet the clearly expressed, and wholly understandable, wishes of elected politicians of all parties to deliver for their communities. Taken alongside other changes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, they entrench the importance of beauty in new development, facilitate the delivery of improved infrastructure, respect the democratic voice of local communities, secure enhancements to our natural environment and deliver quality new neighbourhoods.
With these changes secure, there is now an added responsibility on local government to deliver. The reasons sometimes cited for resisting new development and expediting its delivery have been clearly addressed. So I am setting new expectations for faster delivery, strengthening accountability so poor performers can be better identified, taking further steps to enforce effective delivery of new housing where local authorities have failed most egregiously, and putting other, failing, local authorities on notice of my intention to intervene if performance does not improve significantly.
With this higher level of expectation comes additional resource. We need excellent planners, well funded and well supported, to deliver the many more beautiful new homes we need. Planning is a noble profession and its role in making our communities work for every citizen is vital. That work has not always been recognised and respected as it should be. So I will provide funds to support and reward planners in local government and dedicate the very best in central Government to work with them to deliver.
Our approach to planning is of a piece with the broader approach my Department has taken to local government. We have listened sensitively to elected representatives and given them more of the powers and freedom they have requested. But with that greater freedom comes greater accountability. Where failure occurs, we intervene more quickly and decisively. Where failure risks compromising the national interest, we intervene more comprehensively. We will provide additional resource to support vital professional leaders on the frontline. We will champion their good practice, not least through our new watchdog, the Office for Local Government, but we will also demand that all aspire to reach the standard of the best.
With both the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the new NPPF now in place, alongside the additional resources for planning departments I am announcing today, our planning reforms will accelerate the delivery of new homes. We are on track to deliver 1 million homes this Parliament, in line with our manifesto commitment. Our reforms will also strengthen our ability to meet our target of 300,000 additional homes a year. The next generation need those homes built. Future generations need to know the developments we build for them will be beautiful and will endure, and they want the natural environment enhanced to match a better built environment. That is what we will deliver.
National Planning Policy Framework
The NPPF is the backbone of the planning system—it sets the framework within which local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and applicants to the system must operate. Plans must take the framework into account, and it is a material consideration for decisions. This makes it fundamental to the delivery of new housing in the right places, while also protecting and enhancing the things we care most about: our environment, heritage assets, our high streets and beyond.
In December 2022, I launched a consultation on changes to the NPPF. We received 26,000 responses and have considered them carefully. In summary, the new NPPF will: facilitate flexibility for local authorities in relation to local housing need; clarify a local lock on any changes to green-belt boundaries; safeguard local plans from densities that would be wholly out of character; free local authorities with up-to-date local plans from annual updates to their five-year housing land supply; limit the practice of housing need being exported to neighbouring authorities without mutual agreement; bolster protections from speculative development for neighbourhoods that develop their own plans; support self-build, custom-build and community-led housing; and cement the role of beauty and place making in the planning system.
There is now no excuse for local authorities not rapidly adopting ambitious plans. The more plans adopted quickly, the more homes delivered quickly—and we have created the right incentives for rapid plan adoption.
The updated NPPF published today contains and should be referred to for the policy changes described in this statement. The full suite of changes are detailed in the Government’s consultation response, but the principal changes are set out here.
The Purpose of Planning
The opening chapters of the NPPF have been updated to provide clarity on a core purpose of the planning system: planning for homes and other development that our communities need. It is also clear that having up-to-date plans in place is a priority in meeting this objective. All the following changes in the framework reflect this fundamental purpose and priority.
Local Housing Need
The standard method for assessing local housing need ensures that plan making is informed by an unconstrained assessment of the number of homes needed, in a way that addresses projected household growth and affordability pressures, alongside an efficient process for establishing housing requirement figures in local plans.
These figures have, however, sometimes been difficult to achieve in some areas and blind to the exceptional characteristics of a local community. That is why the new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for establishing the housing requirements for an area. Some local authorities may wish to deliver more homes. Where a local authority considers the number unachievable, it must provide robust evidence for that judgment. The revised NPPF provides clarity on what may constitute such exceptional circumstances for using an alternative method to assess housing need, including the particular demographic characteristics of an area, which could include those that may result from the unique nature of islands. Any assessment will be subject to examination as usual.
The Government also considered allowing authorities to take account of past “over-delivery” when preparing new plans. Having considered responses to the consultation, which raised questions over needing to also consider “under-delivery” and the risk of double counting homes via the standard method, we are not proceeding with this change at this time.
Green Belt
This Government are committed to protecting the green belt. Planning policy already includes strong protections to safeguard green belt for future generations. The green belt is vital for preventing urban sprawl and encroachment on valued countryside. England’s cities are already less dense than those of most of our European neighbours. That is environmentally wasteful and economically inefficient. We seek to support the gentle densification of urban areas in preference to the erosion of green-belt land. That is why the Government are ensuring it is clear that there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green-belt boundaries if this would be the only way to meet housing need. Where a relevant local planning authority chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are only altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, and this should only be through the preparation or updating of plans.
The Government are making no changes to the rules that govern what can and cannot be built on land that is green belt, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield development in the green belt can occur provided the openness of green belt is not harmed. I understand that the Opposition have advocated this as if it would be a new approach, suggesting a misunderstanding of existing policy, which the Government are therefore happy to make even clearer in practice guidance.
Character
This Government believe in heritage, beauty and community. It is important that the character of an existing area is respected by new development, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations where significant uplifts in residential densities would be inappropriate as they would be wholly out of character with the existing area, and that this may in turn affect how much development can be planned for in the area concerned. This will apply where there is a design code that is adopted or will be adopted as part of the local plan.
Exporting Housing Need
The standard method was amended in 2020 to include an uplift in need for the 20 most populated English cities and urban centres. This urban uplift supports the Government’s objectives, as outlined above, to make the best use of previously developed land and locate more homes in our larger towns and cities, where development can help to reduce the need to travel and contribute to productivity, regeneration and levelling up. The updated NPPF now makes it clear that this uplift should be accommodated within those cities and urban centres concerned rather than exported to surrounding areas—except where there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement to do so, or where this would conflict with other policies in the NPPF. This complements the repeal of the duty to co-operate through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which will shortly come into effect.
Five-year Housing Land Supply
Up-to-date local plans ensure local communities are in control of where and what development happens in their area. They are key to getting more homes built in the right places. Where such plans are in place, the Government are committed to protecting local authorities from unwarranted speculative development.
The Government consider an up-to-date plan to be a plan that is less than five years old, and which contained a deliverable five-year supply of land at the conclusion of its examination. All planning authorities are required to maintain a five-year supply of land to ensure homes and wider developments are built in the right places. However, authorities have previously been required to update this supply annually in a process that was burdensome and provided too many opportunities for speculative development.
We are now changing this and removing the requirement for planning authorities that have done the right thing and put an up-to-date plan in place to update annually their five-year supply of land. This change provides these authorities with additional protection from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I am also fully removing the 5% and 10% buffers that could be applied to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement will ensure that decision making on live applications is not affected, avoiding disruption to applications in the system.
We are also rewarding local authorities at an advanced stage of plan making. Some local authorities have paused plan making in recent months. That is not good policy, it lets communities down, and we have warned of the consequences. Local plans at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage with a policy map and proposed allocations towards meeting housing need only have to demonstrate a four-year housing land supply—as opposed to a five-year supply—for a period of two years for decision-making purposes. That protection is not afforded those who have dragged their feet.
Tough measures will bite where local authorities do not have an up-to-date local plan. They will be required to update their supply annually, and if they fail to do so, they will be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local authorities will have a clearer incentive than ever to get plans in place. Without them, authorities will not be able to control development as their community might wish. There are clear consequences to failing to get a plan in place that delivers a pipeline of new housing.
Another way in which consequences are applied in the planning system is through the housing delivery test. This test is an assessment of an authority’s previous three years of housing delivery, and where there has been under-delivery, consequences follow. Today I am making some changes to these consequences. The 20% buffer an authority needs to add to its housing land supply where housing delivery falls below 85% of its requirement will now only apply to those authorities that do not have an up-to-date plan in place.
All authorities will, however, continue to be subject to the other consequences: producing an action plan identifying the reasons for under-delivery and the measures the authority will take to correct it where delivery falls below 95%; and becoming subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development where delivery falls below 75%.
In summary, we want to make life easier for those authorities who are doing the right thing, getting their plans in place and delivering housing, but also ensure that authorities that continue to fail their communities on housing delivery are held to account.
When it comes to calculating a five-year housing land supply, the Government are clear that we want to bring the position on past over-supply in line with that of past under-supply. We have amended the NPPF to formalise existing planning practice guidance on this topic and will in due course update this guidance to bring the over-supply position in line with under-supply. We will also give further consideration to the proposal to take permissions granted by a local authority into account in the application of the housing delivery test, in particular the operational challenges with doing so identified in the consultation.
Neighbourhood Plans
The poor performance of local planning authorities will lead to consequences. But local communities that have worked hard to put neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The new NPPF therefore protects neighbourhood plans from speculative development from two to five years, where those plans allocate at least one housing site.
Community-Led Housing and Self and Custom Build
The best councils know that driving faster housing delivery requires supporting diversity in the number and type of builders. Councils that support small and medium-sized enterprises in the housing market, and enable custom and self-build homes, drive the necessary increase in supply and better ensure the right homes are provided in the right places. The updated NPPF now emphasises the importance of community-led housing development, including by introducing an exception site policy for community-led housing development. Our policy changes also ensure that local authorities should seek opportunities to support small sites to come forward for community-led housing, and self-build and custom-build housing. They also encourage “permission in principle” alongside other routes to permission, such as local development orders, to remove barriers for smaller and medium site builders in the planning system.
The Government will also encourage the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care, and care homes, by requiring these to be specifically considered in establishing need.
The Role of Beauty
Building beautifully and refusing ugliness has been central to the Government’s planning reforms, as the right aesthetic form makes development more likely to be welcomed by the community. From today, the NPPF goes further to cement the role of beauty and place making in the planning system by expressly using the word “beautiful” in relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater “visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning conditions to provide certainty for those implementing planning permissions, and supports gentle density through mansard roof development where appropriate.
Environment and Energy
The new NPPF also strengthens protections for agricultural land, by being clear that consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural land for food production in development decisions, and supports the Government’s energy security strategy by giving significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage. These amendments will not impose any costs on home or building owners.
Wider Reforms Beyond the NPPF
In addition to those policies we have now updated in the NPPF, in December 2022 I set out ambitions for other housing policies in relation to short-term lets regulations and the character of developers, noting the importance of these issues to communities.
On the character of developers, I also set out concerns about examples of how the planning system is undermined by irresponsible developers and landowners who persistently ignore planning rules and fail to deliver legal commitments to the community. I consulted to explore whether an applicant’s past behaviour should be taken into account in decision making, either through making irresponsible behaviour a material consideration or allowing local planning authorities to decline applications from applicants with a bad track record. Both options would require primary legislation and therefore are beyond the scope of this NPPF update. I welcome views expressed in the consultation and will consider these carefully in further policy development. To address the concerns and frustrations expressed by communities about breaches of planning control more immediately, I am now implementing the planning enforcement package in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. This includes extending the time limits to take enforcement action, increasing maximum fines and reducing loopholes to appeal against enforcement action.
Finally, I am committed to tackling slow build-out rates, recognising that that remains a major concern. I will do so through a consultation on measures to improve build-out rates once the Competition and Markets Authority has published its final report as part of its housebuilding market study in 2024.
Planning Performance
With the updated NPPF now reforming the planning system to take account of the concerns and hopes expressed by locally elected representatives of all parties, it is now up to those who make it work—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—to expedite delivery.
My expectations are simple: planning decisions must be taken on time and should be robust in their reasoning, and all authorities must have an up-to-date local plan. After a period of review and reform, local authorities now have certainty, and with that certainty I now expect a higher level of performance.
As I said in a letter to all local authorities in September, that means: development should proceed on sites that are allocated in an adopted local plan with full input from the local community unless there are strong reasons why it cannot; councils should be open and pragmatic in agreeing changes to developments where conditions mean that the original plan may no longer be viable, rather than losing the development wholesale or seeing development mothballed; and better use should be made of small pockets of brownfield land by being more permissive, so more homes can be built more quickly, where and how it makes sense, giving more confidence and certainty to SME builders.
Today I am going further still, taking steps to improve planning performance on four fronts.
Greater Transparency
Being transparent about data improves understanding of relative good and poor performance, and sparks action. That is why we will publish a new local authority performance dashboard in 2024.
As part of that reporting, we will expose the way in which some local authorities drag their feet. We will strip out the use of extension of time agreements, which currently mask poor performance. While I recognise that there will be instances where such agreements are necessary, I am concerned by the increase in their use—in particular for non-major applications, where the figure has jumped from 9% during the two years to March 2016 to 38% during the two years to March 2022. I therefore intend to consult on constraining their use, including banning them for householder applications, limiting when in the process they can apply, and prohibiting repeat agreements.
Additional Financial Support
In recognition that we are expecting better performance from local authorities, we are providing additional resource to help meet those expectations through a range of new funding streams.
First, as of 6 December, planning fees have increased by 35% for major applications and 25% for other applications. Local authorities are obliged to spend these fees on planning services, and I am clear there should be no decrease in authorities’ spend on planning from their general fund.
Secondly, following the Chancellor’s boost to the planning skills delivery fund at the autumn statement to a total £29 million, 180 local authorities have today been awarded a share of £14.3 million from the first round of funding. This will better enable them to clear their planning application backlogs and invest in the skills needed to deliver the changes set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act.
Thirdly, we are establishing our planning super squad members—the new team of leading planners and specialists whose talents will be used to unblock major developments—with £13.5 million to fund their work.
Fourthly, the autumn statement allocated £5 million to support local development orders. These are a powerful way for local authorities to grant planning permission up-front where development meets pre-determined rules, but have been underused. The Government recognise both the different nature of the process for developing a local development order and the loss of fee income could disincentivise take up, and will therefore use this £5 million to support a small number of authorities with exciting proposals to get such orders in place—and, if successful, look to expand this kind of support more widely.
Fifthly, and demonstrating that we will act to support development where the Opposition seem determined to block it, we are today allocating up to £57 million to the eight successful bids in the first round of the local nutrient mitigation fund. At the same time, we are confirming that the second round will open for bids in January 2024, and providing a further round of nutrient support funding in the form of £100,000 to the lead local authority for large, affected catchments. The Environment Secretary and I are determined to do more in the new year to unblock these stalled homes, while enhancing public access to nature and leaving our environment in a better state than we found it.
Faster Processes
Today we also address wider causes of delay in the planning system, with action on statutory consultees, customised arrangements for major applications, and support to prioritise the work of planning committees.
On statutory consultees, while the statistics suggest that most do respond within the 21-day limit, the use of holding responses is disguising a process that is too slow. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act makes sure statutory consultees can charge for pre-application advice, which should tackle problems upstream for developers and reduces downstream requests from local authorities.
I am, however, convinced there is more we can do. I am asking Sam Richards to lead a rapid, three-month review into the wider statutory consultee system to understand how best to direct their advice and resources to support speedy and effective decision making. I also expect to see greater discretion and judgement applied by both local authorities and statutory consultees on where advice is sought and where it needs to be offered.
Accelerated planning services, which were confirmed in the autumn statement, will build on the existing model of planning performance agreements, which are struck between local authorities and developers, detailing how an application will be handled and what timescales will apply. While we know these agreements work well in some areas, it is also clear that they are used inconsistently, with many developers finding that the payments charged and the level of service offered vary significantly between authorities.
We will now look to regularise these arrangements, making sure that they are offered across England, that clear milestones have to be agreed, that fees are set at an appropriate level, and that those fees have to be refunded where milestones are missed. Given the complexity and necessary flexibility that comes with such applications, we will work closely with the sector as we design these arrangements before consulting in the new year.
On planning committees, we rightly see elected representatives judge the merits of significant applications, and it is vital that they focus their time on applications that truly merit such scrutiny and arrive at decisions following legitimate reasoning. On this basis, I have asked the Planning Inspectorate to start reporting to the Department about cases where a successful appeal is made against a planning committee decision and the final decision is the same as the original officer’s recommendation. The overturning of a recommendation made by a professional and specialist officer should be rare and infrequent—such that I have reminded the inspectorate that where it cannot find reasonable grounds for the committee having overturned the officer’s recommendation, it should consider awarding costs to the appellant.
I intend to consider what more we can do to support planning officers and the committees they serve to focus on the right applications. This might be about providing more training, or using guidance to share best practice on the tools that can help to prioritise a committee’s time, including the schemes of delegation that authorities adopt to determine which applications get determined by officers and which warrant committee airing.
Direct Action
Where these expectations for the planning system are not met, I will intervene.
I support transferring power to local areas so decisions are taken as close as possible to the areas and people most affected by them. With sharper power, authority and flexibility, however, comes sharper accountability. Where there is failure, and communities are in danger of being let down, the Secretary of State must act.
In this spirit, I am issuing a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they fail, I will consider further intervention to ensure a plan is put in place. This does not mean I am not prepared to act elsewhere, and I expect all other authorities to make sure that they have an up-to-date plan timetable in place within the same timeframe, with a copy provided to my Department.
I have also designated two additional authorities for their poor decision-making performance and intend to review the thresholds for designation to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better. The 2022 housing delivery test results will be published today too, with 20 new authorities becoming liable to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Finally, as the results of the housing delivery test show us, action is required in London, where the homes we need are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging. The average of 38,000 net additional dwellings over the past three years has considerably undershot the Mayor’s own target in the London plan.
I made clear previously that I want to work with the Mayor, and I still do. But it has become evident that changes to the plan itself may be needed if our capital is to get the homes its people need to flourish and thrive. Therefore, I am today asking Christopher Katkowski KC, Councillor James Jamieson, Paul Monaghan and Dr Wei Yang to review the London plan and identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much-needed homes in urban city sites in the heart of the capital.
Reflecting the sincere spirit of partnership that I emphasised in the summer and repeat now, their recommendations will come to me early in the new year and I will share their report with the Mayor of London. But recognising my responsibilities to the citizens of London, and London’s role in driving growth that benefits the whole country, I stand by what I said in July—that if directing changes becomes necessary, I will do so.
Cambridge
Finally, I want to provide an update on the Government’s vision for Cambridge 2040. In July, I outlined plans for a new urban quarter, adjacent to the existing city, with beautiful neo-classical buildings, rich parkland, concert halls and museums providing homes for thousands.
This would be accompanied by further, ambitious development around and in the city to liberate its potential with tens of thousands of new homes.
In the intervening months, Peter Freeman, the chair of the Cambridge Delivery Group, has been developing our vision for the city, in collaboration with a whole host of local leaders and representatives. I am clear that delivering our vision means laying the groundwork for the long term, and that starts now.
We plan to establish a new development corporation for Cambridge, which we will arm with the right leadership and full range of powers necessary to marshal this huge project over the next two decades, regardless of the shifting sands of Westminster.
We recognise that the scale of development we are talking about will require support from across the public and private sectors, to realise our level of ambition.
We must also ensure that we have an approach towards water that reflects the nature of Cambridge’s geography, so today I am also announcing that we will review building regulations in spring next year to allow local planning authorities to introduce tighter water efficiency standards in new homes. In the meantime, in areas of serious water stress, where water scarcity is inhibiting the adoption of local plans or the granting of planning permission for homes, I encourage local planning authorities to work with the Environment Agency and delivery partners to agree standards tighter than the 110 litres per day that is set out in current guidance.
Copies of the updated national planning policy frame-work and associated documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Following the judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith v. SSLUHC & Ors, the Government are reverting the definition of Gypsies and Travellers used in the planning policy for Travellers sites to that adopted in 2012, with this change applying from today for plan and decision making. The Government intend to review this area of policy and case law in 2024. The revised definition has been published on gov.uk.
[HCWS161]
Government Chemist Review 2022
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (Andrew Griffith)
The 26th annual review of the Government Chemist has been received. The review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses plus those of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
The Government Chemist is the referee analyst named in Acts of Parliament. The Government Chemist’s team carry out metrology analysis in legally disputed cases. A range of referee analysis work was carried out during 2022, which included evaluations of kitchen utensils for primary aromatic amines, scrutinising pesticide protection measurements for tea and flaxseed imports, and detection of aflatoxin in in-shell peanuts and curry powder. The Government Chemist continues to work closely with Government Departments, their governance group, devolved Administrations, non-governmental organisations and industry to identify tools, standards and guidance to facilitate effective testing for food fraud and to grow knowledge transfer activities.
[HCWS153]
Second Reading Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the Bill be considered, I remind noble Lords that the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the Bill. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motion to give the Bill a Second Reading will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way, with the expectation that it will be done formally.
Arbitration Bill [HL]
Tuesday 19th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Arbitration Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Arbitration Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, as our learned Chairman has just indicated, the procedure is, as I understand it, that we will formally move a Motion for Second Reading on the Floor of the Chamber after this debate and then I will move a Motion that the Bill be referred to a Special Public Bill Committee for further consideration. It is a kind of hybrid Bill procedure because this is a Law Commission Bill following the Law Commission report of 5 September 2023, which contained a draft Bill.
I should say at the outset that there are two changes to the draft Bill presented by the Law Commission. First, Clause 1(3) of the Law Commission version provided that the Bill would not apply to any existing arbitration agreement. That caused a certain amount of concern because there are many thousands of existing arbitration agreements going back many years and, if that situation had prevailed, we would have had a dual system for a very long time, as old arbitration agreements became subject to arbitration. The Bill now provides that its changes do not apply to arbitrations that have already commenced, as distinct from existing arbitration agreements. I have taken the precaution of checking with the law officers that that is regarded as satisfactory and that it is in line with earlier precedent in relation to the Arbitration Act 1996, which this Bill amends. That is the first point.
The second point is that the Bill now extends to Northern Ireland, which is thought to be consistent with policy. It does not extend to Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, well knows. Scotland has its own regime under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010.
Following those introductory comments, I will briefly take your Lordships through the Bill, conscious as I am that almost everyone in the Room knows much more about it than I do. I have a certain sense of déjà vu, as this is not unlike appearing once again in front of the Supreme Court, or the House of Lords as it was, considering the galaxy of knowledge and experience that we have before us this afternoon. Your Lordships well know that the arbitral process is of great importance and value, particularly to the commercial community of this country, which is a most important centre for international arbitration. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes to which the parties willingly submit and, in the Government’s view, it should be promoted and kept up to date.
The background to this Bill is the decision by the Lord Chancellor in 2021 to ask the Law Commission to review the Arbitration Act 1996, which contains the present law—I know that certain noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go back well before that and have lived this development over many years. The 1996 Act contains a thorough code of the principles and practice of arbitration in this country. This Bill is intended to bring that structure and framework up to date and ensure that we remain abreast of international developments and that London and these jurisdictions remain competitive on the international scene. Arbitrations in England and Wales generate some £2.5 billion annually in arbitral and legal aid fees alone and in 2021, according to the Law Commission, London was the world’s most popular seat for international commercial arbitration, notably in banking, insurance, trade and other businesses.
Your Lordships will be very familiar with the provisions of the Bill, but I will briefly summarise them. Clause 1 provides that the law governing the arbitration will, unless the parties agree otherwise, be the law of the seat of arbitration. As noble Lords know—I will try to get this completely right—in contractual disputes, the contractual liability will normally be determined by the proper law of the contract, but the contract may provide that the arbitration be elsewhere. A contract may be governed by Russian law but have arbitration in London. In that event, what is known as the curial or supervisory jurisdiction is governed by English law; for example, whether an arbitrator should be removed or to which court some challenge to the arbitral award may be made will be the subject of the law of the seat—in that example, English law.
However, suppose the question is whether the dispute is within the agreement to arbitrate in the first place. In my example, would it be governed by the Russian law of the contract or the English law of the seat? This question has exercised the courts over many years and there have been different views and decisions. In Enka v Chubb in 2020, the Supreme Court, in a split 3:2 decision, arrived at a somewhat complex test for deciding exactly which law governed the agreement to arbitrate. That gave rise, among other things, to a desire for certainty and a clear and simple rule. That simple rule is now provided in Clause 1, which provides that it would normally be the law of the seat unless the parties agree otherwise.
My understanding is that that is already in line with certain standard arbitration agreements and the rules of bodies that provide arbitration services. That is the essential provision of Clause 1. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is well aware, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will thereby align with Scotland, so we will have a common position across the four jurisdictions.
Clause 2 provides a statutory duty on arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality, to maintain the integrity of arbitration in this country. There have been some well-publicised incidents, as a result of which it should be put beyond doubt that arbitrators have a full duty to disclose anything that may reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality.
Clauses 2 and 3 support arbitrators in making impartial and proper decisions without fear that they might incur some personal liability. In the case of an application for the removal of an arbitrator, Clause 3 provides that the arbitrator will not be liable personally for costs unless they have acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for resigning unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable. Those provisions effectively support the independence of arbitrators.
Clauses 5 and 6 deal with jurisdiction. Under Clause 5, if there is a challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on which the tribunal has already ruled, the losing party cannot go directly to the court on a preliminary point to challenge that; it must await the final arbitral award and then make that challenge under Section 67. That in effect rules out earlier challenges to the court on jurisdiction.
Clause 6 clears up something of a mystery: when an arbitral tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction, does it none the less have jurisdiction to award costs? Clause 6 provides that it does; there is a power to award costs even if the arbitral tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction over the dispute in question. Clause 7 effectively replicates the summary judgment procedures available in the court and empowers arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis if a particular issue has no real prospect of success.
Clauses 8 and 9 pertain to the powers of the court. Clause 8 empowers it to make court orders reinforcing the orders of emergency arbitrators. These powers already exist in relation to normal arbitrators, but on occasion emergency arbitrators are appointed, so this makes sure that the existing powers to issue court orders apply equally where there is an emergency arbitrator. Clause 9—again, similarly to normal court proceedings—entitles arbitrators to make orders in support of arbitral proceedings against third parties, most likely banks that may be holding relevant funds. That provision resolves a certain conflict in the case law and aligns the position of arbitral proceedings with that in court proceedings.
Clause 10 is essentially a tidying-up measure. There are various bases for challenging an arbitral award in the 1996 Act: Section 67 for lack of jurisdiction, Section 68 for serious irregularity or Section 69 for a point of law. Clause 10 ensures that, where there is a challenge under Section 67 for lack of jurisdiction, the remedies available to the court are the same as they would be were the challenge under Sections 68 or 69, to bring a certain degree of consistency across the three main ways of challenging arbitral awards.
Under Clause 11, if an arbitral party applies to the court to challenge an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 67, that challenge should not be a full rehearing with new evidence and arguments—it should, in effect, be decided on the existing record so that the court does not have to restart or do the whole thing afresh on the basis of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. That will streamline and simplify the operation of such challenges.
There are then some quite short, technical provisions. Clause 12 clarifies certain time limits. Clause 13 codifies the law in relation to the staying of legal proceedings and Clause 14 streamlines the process of applying to the court under the 1996 Act for certain preliminary rulings on jurisdiction and points of law. Clause 15 repeals certain sections that have never been brought into force and are therefore redundant.
That is a very brief outline. I am not sure whether it was a fast trot or a slow canter. Your Lordships are much more familiar with this area than I am. The Bill is intended to increase the competitiveness of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and primarily London, as a seat of international arbitration, to foster growth in both domestic and international arbitration, to introduce a fairer and more efficient process and to reduce reliance on resort to the court. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have never spoken in the Moses Room in the two years since my return to the House of Lords and I am not familiar with the procedure, so if I go wrong, I hope that our Deputy Chairman or someone else will put me right.
I am in a rather poignant position, in that I am the sole surviving parliamentarian who took part in the 1979 Bill and the 1996 Bill. That is not to say that I am the only creature still alive who was involved in that Bill, because Robert Ayling was the assistant solicitor in the Department of Trade—the 1979 Bill was taken through partly by the Lord Chancellor’s Department and partly by the Department of Trade. As far as I know, he is alive and kicking; I have not seen him for a little time. Mark Saville, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, played a critical part in the 1996 Act, but he had not by then arrived in the House of Lords Judicial Committee, which he did a year later, and therefore he sat on the steps of the Throne. He was a very important person, but not a parliamentarian at the time.
Of the parliamentarians of the time—if we could remember them—there was Lord Maurice Peston, who spoke for my party throughout the Arbitration Bill. He mugged up on the subject very well and was a very good participant in our debates. Lord Peter Fraser of Carmyllie was the government spokesman to take through our debates. Alas, both have departed this world, as indeed have other prominent Members of the House who took a very active part, including Lord Mustill, Lord Donaldson and Lord Roskill. So here I am as the one surviving parliamentarian. There is another name I must mention at once—Mr Toby Landau. Not only is he alive and kicking but he is here in this Room to listen to our debate. At least somebody other than me is still alive and kicking.
As I said, I am not familiar with the proceedings in the Moses Room and I am ready to be corrected at any time. I have some memories of the 1979 and 1996 Acts which I think it would be valuable for the Committee to be reminded of. Therefore, I intend to take a little time in doing so. I am aware that this is very close to the Christmas Recess. If any noble Lord, particularly one who is listed to speak, thinks that I am going on too long, I would ask him not to suffer me but to stand up and, if needs be, cut back my words.
The foundation of this Bill, and indeed the foundation of all arbitration law, goes back to the Act of 1698. The Bill in its preamble was described as:
“An Act for determining Differences by Arbitration”.
Further on in the preamble, we have the words: now this Bill is
“for promoting Trade and rendring the Awards of Arbitrators the more effectual in all Cases for the final Determination of Controversies referred to them by Merchants and Traders or others”.
This important Act of so long ago established the support that was needed for the conduct and, indeed, the encouragement of the use of, arbitration as a means of settling disputes. Right up to the present time, our statutory law should create a balance between the courts and arbitrations. It should also be promotional for the conduct of arbitration in the United Kingdom. The importance of that comes out clearly in a briefing that we have just received from the Law Society, which calculates that currently there are no fewer than 5,000 arbitrations annually, bringing an income of £2.5 billion to the economy, so it is of importance. I would suggest that what we are doing today is of importance.
I actually doubt whether 5,000 arbitrations is the right calculation, when one takes into account the numerous LMAA and GAFTA arbitrations, and other arbitrations in the commodity field. Indeed, when I headed up an action group in 2000—I have its paper here—there were then more than 3,000 LMAA arbitrations. But whatever it is, the figure is very large and, I suggest, very important.
The 1979 Act was specifically directed to two matters. One was the setting aside and annulment of these two procedures: the “case stated” procedure and the procedure for setting aside awards for errors on its face, which was also being used. It was used by parties when they were not doing very well in an arbitration and who then sought to take their arbitration to the courts to cause delay, embarrassment and difficulty to the plaintiff or complainant.
Indeed, in the debate that I opened in May 1978 in the Chamber of this House, I read a letter from the general counsel of Raytheon, the massive defence producer of weapons and the like. In that letter, the general counsel said that, because of the way in which two of the major arbitrations were being sucked into the court by the case stated procedure, he had given directions that there should not be any arbitration agreement signed by Raytheon, carrying a London arbitration jurisdiction. That is how serious it was. Thanks to Lord John Donaldson, the 1979 Act effectively got rid of both the case stated procedure and the procedure of setting awards aside on their face. It also created what I believe to be the right balance between the law courts and arbitration, and that has been continued ever since.
When I was citing the 1698 Act, I should have mentioned that were other arbitration Acts in the 19th century, one based on the MacKinnon report. There was of course the consolidating Arbitration Act 1950, but none were developing arbitrations on the foundation Arbitration Act 1698.
The big challenge for getting the 1979 Act through was to get Lord Diplock on side. A former commercial judge—I think he was the first judge of the Commercial Court—he was a man, a judge and a Lord of great influence, and if we did not get him on side, we had no hope of getting the 1979 Act through. The second great challenge in 1978-79 was to get the Government to give time and support for what became the 1979 Act. We achieved the first, getting Lord Diplock on side. We were greatly assisted by Bob Clare, who was then senior partner of the very big American law firm of Shearman & Sterling. He walked Lord Diplock round and round the lake at Selsdon Park until he managed to get his support.
The other way of getting Lord Diplock on side was achieved by Lord Donaldson in creating special categories of arbitrations—those relating to admiralty, commodity and insurance—and setting those aside, so that they were not entitled to opt out of the new arbitration process. Lord Diplock felt very deeply on the subject; he described the commodity and admiralty arbitrations as providing the water in the fountain of the development of English commercial law. That was quite an achievement on the part of Lord Donaldson. Incidentally, at that time Lord Donaldson was the senior judge in the Commercial Court, and, in the very active way that he approached matters, he set up a special committee which issued a report. That was then given accord by the Government of the day, being made into a Command Paper, which was of great influence in getting the 1979 Act.
As for getting the Government on side, we really had to thank Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who was a retired stockbroker. I won the ballot and therefore succeeded in having the right to open a debate on the future of arbitration in London. There are a number of noble and learned Lords behind me now; at that debate, there were a number of Law Lords in front of me. Lord Diplock took part—I am just trying to remember all those who did—as did Lord Scarman and Lord Wilberforce. This somewhat surprised the Opposition Benches. They could well have replaced Lord Cullen of Ashbourne with Lord Hailsham, who, for example, was close to arbitration law and took an active part in the 1979 Act. However, they remained loyal to Lord Cullen, which meant that we received the evidence from him of the loss of £500 million in invisible earnings, which is what the loss of income to the Government was called then. That was an astounding figure—probably close to £5 billion in today’s currency. The Lord Chancellor spoke to me about it afterwards and said, “Is it really that much?” I was quite sure that it was not, but just said to him, “I think it is a very large sum of money”. He then seized upon the opportunity to push forward that Bill, because the Labour Government were not doing awfully well and he thought it would be awfully good for them to do something that was wholly friendly to the City of London.
It was given the Rolls-Royce treatment—that was the term Sir Thomas Legg gave it, from the Lord Chancellor’s Department—but it nearly got into a disaster. I am going on a little but am getting quite close to my end. We nearly got into a disaster at the end of that because the Labour Government collapsed in March 1979. We had just had the Bill go all the way through the House of Lords and it had not got near the House of Commons. As a result, there was a happy trade-off with the House of Commons through the official channels, which was how the Bill was saved.
Onward therefore to the 1996 Act: it was a rather slow process, which caused Arthur Marriott to take up an initiative. That then brought about the setting-up of what was called the departmental—
Lord Roborough (Con)
I give a gentle reminder to the noble Lord that there is an advisory speaking time of 15 minutes. We have time, but if there are points he wishes to make—
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I appreciate that, and I am not yet at 15 minutes, but there is nothing on the speakers’ list that stipulates a time of 15 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
If I could clarify, it is normally expected in a Second Reading that 15 to 20 minutes is the maximum. Obviously, sometimes there are exceptions, but particularly as the noble Lord asked at the beginning for any clarification, I thought that would be helpful.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Yes, I am very aware that behind me, and in other parts of this Committee Room, there may well be those who are anxious about getting away for their Christmas. I will therefore be responsive to this interjection and bring the Committee to another very important crisis—one which leads directly to what I have said about the importance of an arbitration Bill. It should not only set the right relationship between arbitration and the courts but be promotional in nature.
The departmental committee was headed up first by Lord Mustill and then by Lord Steyn. They gave up the fight with the parliamentary draftsman who was, dear lady, a very pedantic one. She produced a Bill which was enormously complicated and quite unreadable. It included, most surprisingly—Mr Toby Landau would remember this—the writ of habeas corpus. We had a meeting about it in Queen Mary College, down the Mile End Road, and there was an uproar against it. I remember Jan Paulsson, a leading international arbitrator, making scathing comments. There was a skeleton hang-up and what we should therefore be grateful for, and what I would like to record, is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and Mr Toby Landau started all over again. That is the product we have now in the 1996 Act.
The important thing about what we are doing now is that this is a wholly readable Bill. It does not have a whole lot of parliamentary junk in it. It takes you all the way through each stage of the arbitration. What we should be doing now is to make quite sure that we follow in that line. I do have comments about the Bill itself, but I will leave those to another time.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his fascinating historical overview from a personal perspective. For my part, I consider the Bill to be good and extremely useful, and I congratulate the Government on seeking to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations so quickly after the publication of its final report.
There is one matter I should like to raise for the Government to consider, but I want to emphasise that it is not my intention that there should be any amendment to the Bill. The issue concerns discrimination in arbitrator appointments. This matter was raised by the Law Commission in its consultations, in which it observed that women were up to three times less likely to be appointed than men. Consultees had different views about this but in the end the Law Commission decided that there should be no anti-discrimination provision in its draft Bill.
I ask the Government to consider, perhaps when there is next a review of the Equality Act 2010, whether there might be some provision in that Act concerning discrimination in arbitrator appointments. I recognise that it would be important for the Government to carry out a consultation prior to any decision on the matter to see whether such a provision would for technical or other reasons place the United Kingdom at a disadvantage in competing with other countries for the conduct of international arbitrations.
As I have said, this should not be the subject of an amendment to the Bill, not least because it is proceeding in accordance with the special expedited procedure for uncontentious Law Commission Bills. It is a matter for future consideration, possibly in relation to the Equality Act.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest on this matter: I am a practising member of the Bar and my practice includes arbitrations including proceedings under the Arbitration Act. I am also a member of the Commercial Bar Association, but I had no involvement in Combar’s response to the consultation on the Bill.
I, too, welcome the Government’s decision to press ahead with this Bill so soon after the completion of the excellent work by the Law Commission, to which I pay tribute. The number and quality of the responses to the two consultations is also to be commended. It is a testament to the breadth and depth of expertise and experience in the field of arbitration that we are lucky to have in this jurisdiction.
I should like to say a few words in support of the conclusions reached by the Law Commission, as reflected in this Bill, on a couple of points. The first is the scope of the court’s review of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 67 of the current Arbitration Act. This is addressed in Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. In its first consultation paper, the commission suggested that in order to avoid delay and costs for the parties, instead of a full review, there should be an appeal. After two rounds of consultation, the commission concluded that there should not be a radical departure from the current system, proposing instead some limited and pragmatic procedural improvements.
That is the right conclusion. A key question in any system of consent-based jurisdiction is who should police the boundaries of that jurisdiction. An arbitral tribunal can of course rule on its own jurisdiction under the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, but it does not follow from this principle that that tribunal should be the final arbiter of its jurisdiction. Arbitration is successful because it is widely seen as having legitimacy. That legitimacy depends to a significant degree on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals being subject to effective controls that go well beyond the self-policing by the same tribunal of its own jurisdiction.
In the wider world of international law, where consent-based jurisdiction is also the norm, an exorbitant jurisdictional determination by an international court or tribunal does not always have a clear or easy fix and that can create a legitimacy problem, and it sometimes does so. It was therefore important to preserve the architecture created under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act, as interpreted by our courts. At the same time, I believe that Clause 11 provides some protection to the winning party from the risk of unnecessary time-wasting and delay that follow from having to relitigate jurisdiction. Under Clause11, this objective would be achieved through the use of rules of court, which strikes me as a sensible and pragmatic solution.
The other question on which I wanted to touch was the one on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has spoken: the principle of discrimination and whether there should have been an amendment to ensure that it applied to the appointment of arbitrators. There were a number of problems with that, as the Law Commission rightly identified. One is that under Article V of the 1958 New York convention, it is stated:
“Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused”
where it is shown that
“The composition of the arbitral authority … was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties”.
Another difficulty discussed in the consultation was that, particularly in international arbitration, it is quite common to require arbitrators to be of a nationality different from that of the parties.
In the course of considering this question, the commission helpfully set out the ways in which discrimination already applies to arbitration. That is so particularly through the duty of impartiality but also, as far as barristers and solicitors are concerned, through our professional codes of conduct. The obligation not to discriminate is, of course, a core professional duty.
It bears noting that in the 2022 review of discrimination in professional codes of conduct by the International Bar Association, England and Wales came out as one of the best jurisdictions. We have codes of conduct that prohibit discriminatory conduct by lawyers in any capacity, and not only in the exercise of professional functions. This matters because it is lawyers who advise clients on the contractual terms on the appointment of arbitrators and, ultimately, on whom to appoint. In doing so, in this jurisdiction, lawyers have to be mindful of their responsibility. The Law Commission was right to conclude on this point, after its thorough consideration of the question, that there should not be
“any further legislation within the Arbitration Act to prohibit discrimination, in particular in the appointment of arbitrators by … parties, because we think that this will not improve diversity of arbitral appointments, but could well lead to unwarranted satellite litigation and challenges to awards”.
My final, brief point is on Clause 1, which settles a complex question—one on which the case law had never been fully and satisfactorily settled. New Section 6A has the clear benefit of clarity and simplicity.
In sum, I too very much welcome this Bill. It is a timely and measured intervention in our law that we should all be grateful to the Law Commission for, and to the Government for pressing ahead.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I too, I think in common with all your Lordships, very much welcome this Bill. It is plain from the Law Commission’s report that it is the product of a great deal of hard work on the parts of the Law Commission itself and those who responded to its papers in the course of this process.
The result is a compact measure that seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 in 15 distinct respects. I do not think that anything in the Bill is controversial. On the contrary, the proposals will all contribute to the improvement of the law of arbitration in England and Wales in the various ways that the Minister explained in his helpful introduction. Our thanks must go to all the members of the Law Commission who contributed to this process and to His Majesty’s Government for finding time to bring the Bill before us. We very much hope it will achieve its results before the next election.
At first sight, the best guide to what has been going on might be thought to be found in Appendix 3 to the Law Commission’s final report, which sets out for the reader a list of all the suggestions that have not been taken forward. No less than 54 such suggestions are listed. I thought that this was perhaps quite a good indication of the amount of interest among practitioners that this project has generated. However, my sense of excitement was somewhat dampened when I read in paragraph 3.3 that almost all these suggestions were raised by only one consultee, and that there was, indeed, no widespread clamour for reform in respect of the various suggests that that consultee put forward. On the other hand, the consensus was that the 1996 Act works well, as indeed it does, and that root and branch reform was not needed or wanted. What was looked for, instead, was some updating and refinement of what we already have. Indeed, this is essential if we are to ensure that England and Wales remains the jurisdiction of choice for the resolution of international disputes.
The fact is that there is a very competitive market out there in the wider world. We must keep our heads in front. We do not want to lose our place to others in the Middle East and elsewhere, who are marketing their services vigorously to attract as much business as they can. That is why the work that the Law Commission has done in bringing this Bill forward is so important and so much in the public interest.
Leaving Appendix 3 aside, a word should be said about the work done by some very experienced practitioners in Brick Court Chambers, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. I should mention that, although I am a door tenant there, I was not one of those practitioners. They worked to persuade the Law Commission to include a provision in the Bill about the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. I understand that what is now Clause 1 was not in the first draft of the Bill, but it is good to see that the Law Commission was persuaded that there was a need to clarify the rules as to its determination.
As the Minister mentioned in his introduction, the position in Scotland is set out in Section 6 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, which provides that:
“Where (a) the parties to an arbitration agreement agree that an arbitration under that agreement is to be seated in Scotland, but (b) the arbitration agreement does not specify the law which is to govern it, then, unless the parties otherwise agree, the arbitration agreement is to be governed by Scots law”.
There is currently no such provision in the Arbitration Act which precedes this Bill. On the contrary, as the law stands in England and Wales, no necessary inference can be drawn that by choosing an English seat, and with it English law as the law which governs the proceedings in the arbitration, the parties also, by implication, have chosen English law as the law which governs the arbitration agreement itself.
The need for clarity was rendered all the more pressing by the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb in 2020. In that case, it was held that the question as to the law applicable to the agreement was to be determined by applying English common law rules for resolving conflicts of laws. According to those rules, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement was the law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such choice, the system of law with which the arbitration agreement was most closely connected.
The reasoning in that case—it was a majority decision, as mentioned earlier—was perfectly orthodox, but it seemed to open up issues which, in this context, were best avoided. It was argued that the better view was that where there was no agreement, the law to be applied to the arbitration agreement should be the law of the seat of the arbitration. That simple solution is what is now provided for in new Section 6A(1) of the 1996 Act, which is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. This provision achieves the clarity that is needed, in line with the position in Scotland.
However, new Section 6A(2) adds a rider to what is set out in Section 6A(1), which perhaps need to be clarified. It states that:
“For the purposes of subsection (1), agreement between the parties that a particular law applies to an agreement of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not, of itself, constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement”.
The words “of itself” beg the question: what do they mean? What do they envisage as necessary to displace the default rule that, where no such agreement is made, the law to be applied is the law of the seat of the arbitration?
These questions arise because it may be said that the wording of subsection (1) is perfectly clear in itself; it already uses the word “expressly”. We are told there that the law applicable is
“the law that the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration agreement”.
What, then, does subsection (2) add to what is already provided for in subsection (1)? Indeed, do we need that provision at all? I hope that, at some point, clarity could be given as to the reasoning behind subsection (2) so that we fully understand how it interacts with what is already set out in the clearest language in subsection (1).
That point aside, the wording of the other provisions in the Bill, all of which are very welcome, do not seem to me to give rise to any questions. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading in due course and as soon possible, and I wish it well as it proceeds through its remaining stages in this House and in the other place.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and agree with what noble Lords have said about it. The Library Note on the Bill suggests that the arbitration industry centred on London could be worth at least £2.5 billion to the UK economy each year, although that is described as possibly an underestimate.
There have always been some areas of doubt about certain aspects of the law in relation to arbitration and the Bill is a welcome clarification of many of them. I did not wholly anticipate the problems that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, identified in Clause 1 —it seemed on the face of it to be the answer to what was a somewhat uncertain position as to the law—and I am sure the Minister will consider carefully what he said.
That change and others have been generally welcomed, not least by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I declare an interest as a fellow of the institute, although I have to say that my services have not been called upon very often. I should also declare that the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which I chair, provides for arbitration—extremely cheaply—for those who have complaints against regulated newspapers and their online manifestations. Unfortunately, lawyers for the parties seem to prefer litigation to arbitration.
There is one area that the Law Commission considered but decided not to include in the draft Bill. This was a matter raised not just by the one very assiduous consultee referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope; it was in relation to the secrecy or confidentiality of arbitration. Confidentiality has long been a hallmark of the arbitration process and a significant attraction to users. The rule is not absolute. The contours of those circumstances where one party or another loses confidentiality or secrecy have been developed by the courts. I understand that the reason for omitting any provisions about this may have been that it is regarded as preferable to leave the law to the courts rather than try to capture in legislation in what circumstances there should be a departure from the general principle. It is, of course, always open to those entering into an arbitration agreement to be specific about these matters.
The case law acknowledges that the courts have an important role in ensuring standards of fairness in arbitrations. The 1996 Act, particularly Sections 67 to 69, provides the basis on which a party can challenge an arbitration award in the courts. However, there is an inherent tension between the principle that justice should be both done and seen to be done and the privacy and confidentiality that go with arbitration.
My attention has been drawn to a case reported a few months ago before Mr Justice Robin Knowles, the Federal Republic of Nigeria v P&ID. In a lengthy and comprehensive judgment, Mr Justice Knowles found that P&ID had practised
“the most severe abuses of the arbitral process”.
The judge said in his decision that it
“touches the reputation of arbitration as a dispute resolution process”.
He asked himself whether, on the facts, there was an irregularity within Section 68 of the 1996 Act and found that, notwithstanding the high bar that has to be surmounted to prove a serious irregularity, it had been proved. He found that documents had been obtained by fraud and in breach of professional obligations, that deliberate lies had been told to the panel and that there had been wholly inadequate disclosure. In his view, it was important that Section 68 was available to “maintain the rule of law”.
The case involved huge sums of money that the arbitration panel decided were owed by Nigeria to a shell company in relation to a gas pipeline. After carefully examining the facts and concluding as he did, the judge said:
“I hope the facts and circumstances of this case may provoke debate and reflection among the arbitration community, and also among state users of arbitration, and among other courts with responsibility to supervise or oversee arbitration. The facts and circumstances of this case, which are remarkable but very real, provide an opportunity to consider whether the arbitration process, which is of outstanding importance and value in the world, needs further attention where the value involved is so large and where a state is involved”.
In discussing the principle of confidentiality, the judge said:
“The privacy of arbitration meant that there was no public or press scrutiny of what was going on and what was not being done. When courts are concerned it is often said that the ‘open court principle’ helps keep judges up to the mark. But it also allows scrutiny of the process as a whole, and what the lawyers and other professionals are doing, and (where a state is involved) what the state is doing to address a dispute on behalf of its people. An open process allows the chance for the public and press to call out what is not right”.
The judgment was unusual and should cause the arbitration community to reflect on the risks inevitably involved in the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. I do not have any amendments to suggest for the Bill, but I respectfully seek a response from the Minister on the serious questions this judgment raises about the appropriateness of arbitration, in particular its confidentiality, when the facts are similar to those of that case. Are the Government satisfied that there is no need for further provision and the matter can be left to individual judges, or has this case caused any change of heart such that they will legislate specifically to avoid a repetition? I do not necessarily expect a response now, except in general terms, but I ask for a more substantial response in writing.
I do not suggest that there is anything inherently unsuitable in encouraging arbitration, for the reasons we have heard, but I wonder whether there are sufficient safeguards to prevent the abuse of the process so starkly illustrated by this case. That said, I welcome the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief as I agree with almost everything that has been said so far. I declare my interests as set out in the register in respect of arbitration and institutions that try to engage with those in arbitration to ensure better enforcement and a better relationship with the courts.
This is an excellent Bill. I commend the work of Professor Sarah Green, who has produced a number of proposals to modernise our law. However, it is important to reflect on one matter. The attempt to establish an online procedural rule committee was frustrated by three general elections, even though it was an uncontroversial, technical piece of law. As it is inevitable that there will be a general election within 13 months—it could be much sooner—I hope we will get on with this Bill as soon as possible so that it is not lost. Progress and speed are essential.
My noble friend Lord Faulks raised concerns about arbitration in London in relation to fraud and other matters. It is important to look at this in the context of what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope said about the competitiveness of the arbitration market. Without any doubt, London is under pressure. It is extremely important that London does not in any way fall under suspicion that something unsavoury can be done in its arbitrations or through its arbitral process.
I therefore hope that the Ministry of Justice takes up this suggestion or, given that its funds are almost non-existent, gets some work done by those who profit so much from the success of London—the Law Society, the Bar Council and arbitral institutions—to ensure that people understand three things: first, that the case to which my noble friend referred is an extraordinarily rare and quite exceptional example of things going wrong, and that it is easy for one case to contaminate things; secondly, that in other debates the legal profession has unfortunately gained a reputation in some quarters for not being anxious to have transparency; thirdly, that there has been concern about the tactics lawyers have used, particularly SLAPPs, on which the Minister brought forward such an important amendment in recent legislation.
I am sure that there is no problem in London, but it would be very good if a small body could quickly report that everything possible is being done to ensure that London arbitration is fair, honest and clean, and that the issues which arose from the Nigeria case and the concerns sometimes expressed about lack of transparency do not affect its fundamental integrity. Otherwise, I have a horror that that kind of criticism will undermine London’s competitiveness. We must not be complacent. However, this is not a matter for the Bill, which needs to go through before the general election.
Lord Hoffmann (CB)
My Lords, I will make a declaration. Since I retired from being a member of your Lordships’ Appellate Committee some 14 years ago, I have practised as an arbitrator in London, including having presided over the Nigerian arbitration to which my noble and learned friends on my right referred.
I have come only to make a modest suggestion for improvement, which has already been anticipated by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, in relation to new Section 6A(2). I can see entirely why it has been inserted into the draft; it has been done in case some literal-minded judge, not really knowing much about the background to this legislation, might say, “It says that the law which the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration. The parties have expressly agreed that the document in question shall be governed by the law of Patagonia, so why doesn’t that include the arbitration agreement, which is part of that document?” As I say, you have to be fairly literal and ignorant to be able to come to such a conclusion, but there it is—that is what it is for.
However, I am afraid that, as I think my noble and learned friend Lord Hope pointed out, the existing new Section 6A(2), which is meant to deal with that problem, has problems of its own because of the words,
“does not, of itself, constitute express agreement”.
If you say that, you can say, “What else is needed, and what else will count as sufficient?” You find that all you can do is to go back and say, “Well, you need an express agreement that the arbitration agreement shall be governed by a different law”. I do not want to say anything which might possibly derail the special procedure under which the Bill is going through the House but, if it were possible quietly to drop new Section 6A(2), that would be an improvement.
The Minister said that we are now aligning our law with the law of Scotland, but the law of Scotland does not have such a provision—it manages perfectly well with Section 1. Likewise, if you sign up to the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration, you get the law of Scotland, not this extra new Section 6A(2). The draftsmen of both those instruments had sufficient confidence in the judiciary to be able to arrive at the proper conclusion, simply on the basis of what is now Section 1. That is the only contribution which I have to make to your Lordships’ debate.
Lord Mance (CB)
My Lords, I shall make just a very brief intervention. First, I disclose that, since retiring from practice as an arbitrator in the Supreme Court, I have also taken part in the representations which were made to the Law Commission, and indeed met with it, and I was one of the judgment writers in a case called Dallah against the Government of Pakistan, which forms part of the background to the clause which amends Section 67.
I echo the congratulations to the Law Commission on its responsiveness and diligence in this matter. The fact that the most significant clause in practical terms emerged only part way through the consultation process shows the commission’s willingness to listen. The way it has dealt with this seems largely satisfactory. I hear what was said about the words “of itself”, which must be read against the background that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffman said, express agreement otherwise is required. There may be a difference regarding Scottish law here, which says simply
“Unless the parties otherwise agree”.
It does not require them “expressly” otherwise to agree. However, that sort of nuance will probably not be decisive. I suspect that the courts will make good sense of Clause 2, even though it looks a bit awkward.
I will say a few words on the important question: what is the approach to review? This will depend in part on the nature of the rules that are permitted to be made under Clause 11. However, I heard the Minister say that the aim was that the challenge should not be de novo. That is an oversimplification; the position is quite nuanced. In new subsection (3C), provision is understandably made for circumstances whereby someone, having argued a jurisdictional point before a tribunal, then seeks to raise objections that they could have raised but did not previously, or seeks to allow evidence that they could have adduced but did not before the tribunal. Not surprisingly, that sort of conduct, without good excuse, potentially will be sanctioned, assuming rules giving effect to new subsections (3C)(a) and (b) are passed.
Otherwise, the scene is largely discretionary. New subsection (3B) simply indicates what type of provision may be made by rules where the tribunal has already ruled, and new subsection (3C)(c) prescribes that,
“evidence that was heard by the tribunal must not be re-heard by the court, unless the court considers it necessary in the interests of justice.”
Like my noble friend Lord Verdirame, I emphasise that it can be important to retain the ability for a court to review de novo the jurisdictional basis on which a tribunal acted, so long as it does not fall foul of one of the situations that I mentioned. It is wrong for a tribunal’s analysis of its own jurisdiction to be axiomatically final. That would be a classic case of bootstrapping and there is a considerable risk—which, I am sure, escapes no one —of conferring on to individuals the power to be arbiters of their own powers. It is healthy to have a review.
That is also internationally contemplated. Take the New York convention, which contemplates that the court of the seat will have an important role in reviewing, among other things, the jurisdictional basis of an arbitrator’s activity if the arbitrators have exceeded their jurisdiction in setting aside their award. The convention also contemplates that enforcement courts may have a parallel role, although their activity may be subject to considerations of issues of stop law and abuse of process if there has been a prior decision by the court of the seat or, indeed, by another enforcement court.
I join my noble friend Lord Verdirame in what he said on this area. Otherwise, I strongly commend the Bill.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it is a very good principle in the House of Lords to speak mainly on things of which you have a great deal of knowledge and experience. That principle has been followed in this debate admirably so far, and would have continued to be followed had my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames not been otherwise engaged today, leaving me with the task without that essential qualification.
What a fascinating debate it has been. We had the long sweep of history from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, whose knowledge goes back even further than I had realised. The emphasis on the competitive market in arbitration, in which England is currently very successful, and its wider legal implications, which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, mentioned, means it is important to keep the laws and procedures up to date so we can continue to get that benefit. It is indeed competitive: was it last year or the year before when Singapore equalled the amount of arbitration that England had been able to achieve?
In the course of the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, initiated a discussion, in which others joined, of the additional subsection in Clause 6 of the 1996 Act. When I read it, I took it to mean that you could not automatically read across, from the contract being by English law, that the arbitration would necessarily be governed by the law of the seat unless it was expressly stated. It seems bizarre that you could conduct proceedings on a contract that was expressly stated to be of English law but you chose to do it by arbitration not under English law, but sometimes Bills have to prohibit bizarre things from happening. No doubt the Minister will be able to explain that to us.
I was helped by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who saved me the task of explaining the Nigerian case, the anxiety that it promotes about how corruption could be concealed within arbitration proceedings and what restraints there were on preventing that from happening by the clear, common-sense statement that if you discover serious corruption, you should not allow it to be buttressed or assisted by the legal process that you are engaged in—that is, the process of arbitration. Arbitration takes place under commercial confidentiality, but it is not meant to be there as a means of allowing corrupt actions to be perpetrated. If the Minister could help us on what might be necessary to deal with that, I would certainly be very grateful. However, I recognise that amending the Bill at this stage, given the special procedure to which it is subject, is not necessarily an easy option even if we could agree on what that amendment should be.
The history of arbitration in England and Wales in recent years is a huge success. It is a major source of foreign earnings and, even more importantly, a great reputation support for our legal system in general and, consequently, for our commercial success. The 1996 Act has operated as a model of its kind and has worked extremely well. There are a huge number of commercial contracts, often nothing to do with England or English entities, that include English arbitration clauses, making England the seat of any arbitration and often subject to English law. A large number of such contracts make English law the law of the contract, not just the law of the arbitration. Undoubtedly significant in that success is the reputation of English arbitrators, including many well-known retired judges—some of them might be Members of this House—for legal incisiveness, incorruptibility, impartiality, courtesy and an unfussy and relatively informal style.
The Bill makes small changes to the Arbitration Act 1996 and introduces some reforms, all of which will be beneficial. It is a model of the Law Commission’s work and, welcome to say, a model of Parliament attending to the Law Commission’s work with due expedition, which has not always been the case. When I chaired the Justice Committee in the Commons, we were constantly complaining about the work that the Law Commission had done that was going nowhere because parliamentary opportunities had not been found to take it forward. This is a very good example of the Government taking it forward and using the fast track that is available. The work itself—two public consultations and thorough consideration of the responses —is also commendable.
The debate so far has identified most of the significant features of the Bill. Other things that I have not mentioned so far include the duty of disclosure, which may be important for parties from outside the UK who are not accustomed to the way in which normal practice would support disclosure in this country. Having an explicit provision may be helpful from that point of view.
Then there is the power to make awards on a summary basis, which reflects the power that courts have to make summary determinations where one party or the other has no real prospect of success. That does not have to be in relation to the whole claim but can relate to particular issues, and the benefit is to stop parties running hopeless points, often at the risk of running up costs for both sides that may not prove recoverable, and at further risk of delaying the proceedings.
Good case management by arbitrators, with the help of the parties in identifying and defining issues suitable for summary determination, could save time and costs. Importantly, it can encourage parties to settle proceedings where summary awards are given on particular issues.
Then we have in Clause 11 the streamlining of the procedure for determining challenges to the courts for awards on jurisdiction under Section 67. That, too, is a helpful improvement in the Bill.
This Bill has been carefully prepared. We spend a lot of time in this House looking at Bills which have been woefully or inadequately prepared, contain numerous unresolved issues or do not even give proper effect to their stated purposes. We cannot say that about this. It is a model of its kind, as is the way that it has been gone about, and I welcome it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, introduced the Bill by saying “Everyone in the Room knows more about this than me”. There is an exception—I suspect that I know less about it than any other noble Lord here.
I am the only speaker in this debate who is not a lawyer. However, I have employed a lot of lawyers in my time and my business experience in employing them was in trying to avoid litigation or arbitration. I was very much of the view that it was not a route that would be beneficial to the businesses which I was involved with, but it was very welcome that that resource was there. Litigating or arbitration within England and Wales was trusted by all international parties with which I was dealing. There was never any question about the jurisdiction in which any future disputes would be agreed and it was always an easy thing to agree with international colleagues.
My noble friend Lord Hacking gave us a tour de force on the historical context. He took us all the way back to 1698 and talked about his early days in this House. I have been around here quite a long time too and remember very well Maurice Peston, Peter Fraser and a number of the other noble Lords to whom he referred when the 1996 Bill was being considered, although I do not go back as far as 1979.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, opened by congratulating the Government on the Bill, as I think everyone did. However, it is fair to say that all noble Lords, while congratulating the Government, raised particular issues. The noble and learned Lord referred to anti-discrimination procedures, the Equality Act and the appointment of arbitrators. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, spoke in a wider context, if I can put it like that, about how English and Welsh arbitration fits within an international framework. I have been on the edges of those types of procedure and they have been wholly unsatisfactory, from my point of view. There is an international frame- work for dealing with matters when they cross boundaries and, when there are disputes about jurisdiction, it can be an extremely lengthy and expensive procedure in which to be involved. When there are these jurisdiction issues, I would be interested to know whether the Bill may, for example, go some way to resolving them, because I understand that they can be difficult.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked a particular question about the Scottish position on arbitration. Again, I will listen to the Minister’s response on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised Nigeria v P&ID Ltd. This case was referred to in the Explanatory Notes and I had a look at that judgment. It seemed that the concern raised within it by Mr Justice Knowles was whether going through the arbitration process itself can be used as a way of money laundering. That is a concern. The noble Lord asked a number of questions of the Minister on whether, in that set of circumstances with those particular concerns raised, the Bill will go any way to addressing those concerns or whether it is such a particular set of circumstances that it is not appropriate for this Bill. I thought that was an interesting question.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, essentially raised the same point about making sure, to quote his words, that London arbitration is seen as fair, honest and clean. If it is anything less than that, it will undermine its competitiveness and its standing in the world.
We then had the two speakers in the gap, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Mance. They both spoke with huge amounts of expertise and raised their own particular technical points, which I am sure the Minister will answer fully. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, concluded that he agreed that this is an important and well-prepared Bill—a model, to use his word, of how Bills should be handled in this House.
The Labour Party obviously supports this Bill. The only point I have for the Minister is that none of the measures introduced in the Bill can be easily measured. Will there be any sort of assessment, in a year or two’s time, of whether the changes introduced are working satisfactorily and whether this may need to be returned to in the next few years? Whether the changes are actually having any impact would not seem to be easily measured but, other than that, we support the Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their contributions to this debate, in particular for the broad welcome that the Bill has received from the Committee. I take it on myself—authorised, if I may, on behalf of this Committee —to pass on our warm thanks to the Law Commission and its team, one of whose representatives are here, for the extraordinary work that has been done on the Bill, and indeed to all those who participated in the consultation. As has been said, it is a model of its kind. All legislation should aspire to reach this kind of standard. That is the first thing I need to say.
Secondly, I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on his tour de force, going back to 1698—almost as if he was there in 1698, though not quite perhaps—and thank Mr Landau for coming today and blazing an earlier trail, in which we follow with diffidence as the years go by. We are well aware of the points he made on the importance of achieving a good balance between the courts and arbitration on the one hand, and promoting arbitration in this country and pursuing that objective, as the Law Society has today underlined.
With those introductory comments, perhaps I could deal briefly with at least some of the points that have been made, bearing in mind that we still have the Public Bill Committee to come; further points can, of course, be raised then. The equality point, raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a difficult one. The Law Commission decided not to proceed to do anything about it but it is something that we can, of course, keep under review. When the Equality Act next comes up for consideration, I anticipate that this point would need to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the Nigeria case and the tension inherent in arbitration between privacy and transparency. I will make two points about that case. First, in a sense, it established that London is capable of dealing with this kind of fraud, because there was a judge who was able to expose it, and a procedure and, in the end, it was demonstrated that the supervisory jurisdiction in England and Wales works very well.
Secondly, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that it was almost certainly a one-off—a quite extraordinary exception to the general rule. However, the Government ought to take under advisement whether we should do anything to further establish or reinforce what is undoubtedly the case—that London is clean, to use the word of the noble and learned Lord. With the co-operation of the professions, we ought to quietly establish whether anything further should be done to ensure that that is indeed the case. However, it was a disturbing case and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, question marks remain in some cases, over some aspects of the legal profession in relation to SLAPPS, transparency and so forth. In some areas, further consideration may be necessary in due course.
I am glad that the issue with the words “of itself” in new Section 6A(2) has been drawn to the Government’s attention. Again, we should reflect on that. I think that I understand what the draftsman is driving at, but perhaps we should embark on further amendment to that section and whether it is necessary—perhaps we should consider that further.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, raised the issue of the review under Clause 11 and the whole question of what the rules of court should do and how far they should go. That may link back to our earlier discussion about the Nigeria case, because this is the court taking a very active review role. No doubt there will be a consultation in due course on the rules of court, and it will be important to bear in mind the points made today.
Those were the main points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked whether we planned to have an assessment in a year or two. That is a little far ahead for the Government to be looking at the moment.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
However, this is an area where Governments, the profession and practitioners are constantly aware of the need for London to be competitive, fair, open and transparent and to prosper. As the years pass, this will be reviewed over time to ensure that London remains competitive by the natural play of market forces.
I think I have covered the main points raised. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Could I draw the Minister’s attention to Section 61 of the 1996 Act, which the Law Commission has not pronounced upon? This is the section on the power of the arbitrators to award costs, and how they should do so. Section 61(2) says that
“the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should follow the event”.
That is the regular jargon used in cases conducted before our law courts. At the very end of the case, the winning party gets up and asks the judge to award costs following the event—namely, that that party has won and therefore the other party should pay all the costs. That goes to the point that I was making that this should be a promotional Act, attractive to those from overseas—and how are those overseas persons meant to know or understand what
“costs should follow the event”
means?
It is more complicated than that. This came out in two cases, both under the jurisdiction of the wonderful Law Lord, Tom Bingham. When he was a mere Mr Justice, he did the case of “Catherine” in 1982—and then, when he was the Lord Justice of Appeal, he presided on the Norwegian Cruise case of April 1988. In both those cases, he did not follow the normal rule of costs following the event, because in both those cases the winning party had taken up excessive time on matters that it lost in the dispute. Therefore, it is not so simple as costs following the event and the loser paying.
What I suggest concerning this clause is that we take the opportunity during the passage of the Bill to remove that phrase and leave it as a simple judgment of the arbitrator or arbitrators—what is the fair order on costs that that they should make.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for that intervention. As far as I know, the Law Commission did not consider that specific question, so I am not entirely sure, as of now when I am on my feet, to what extent we should widen the debate in the context of this particular Bill. But I shall take his point back and further consider it, and see whether the Government have a position on the point that he very strongly makes.
House of Lords
Home and Online Schooling
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether there has been a rise in home schooling and online schooling, and what action they are taking to strengthen child safeguarding in this context.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are aware that the number of home-educated children has been rising for several years. While the rise in itself is not an inherent safeguarding concern, the view of many local authorities is that the increase is driven by reasons other than commitment to home education. That is why we remain committed to introducing local authority statutory registers, are consulting on revised elective home education guidance, and have launched an accreditation scheme for full-time online education providers.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, it is important to try to understand the reasons for the rise in home education. Can the Minister provide a demographic breakdown of home-schooled children by sex, age, ethnicity, location—there may be hotspots—special educational needs and reasons for home schooling? I do not expect that information to be provided now; I can have it in writing. If that information is not readily available through local authorities, could mechanisms be implemented to collect it? I am worried about children with special educational needs. Are their needs being met? I am worried about the content and quality of online education, although I acknowledge that it removes barriers to learning. I am very worried about the increased risk of children being subjected to sexual violence and domestic abuse—Sara Sharif is an example. Some girls will be at increased risk of FGM and forced marriage. What will the Government do about these things? I do not think the register is the only solution.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share many of the noble Baroness’s concerns. On her first point, we believe there are three main reasons why parents might decide to educate their children at home. The first is that they want to do it and it is a positive choice. The second is that they feel that the school their child is at is not meeting their child’s needs, particularly where special educational needs come in, as the noble Baroness suggests. The third group is where we have genuine safeguarding concerns. The Government are working on all three aspects, and part of the consultation will aim to address them.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, there is surely another key element in the increase in home tuition: the aftermath of Covid and home working. Is it not true that we need a rapid increase in the availability of child and adolescent mental health services and direct support for parents who need help to get their children back into school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not disagree that the aftermath of Covid has impacted not just home education but perhaps more particularly the wider issues that we have debated in your Lordships’ House related to attendance at school. The noble Lord is aware that we are expanding mental health support teams across schools and recruiting additional educational psychologists to support children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that literally hundreds of thousands of children are missing from our schools—potentially an educationally lost generation. The charity School-Home Support has found that, particularly in poor communities, where children do not want to go to school they pretend to home educate and it is not happening. Is the answer not for the Government to bring a simple Bill which would make it lawful for parents to have to register if they are home educating?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think we have to be slightly careful about the use of the numbers. The noble Lord talked about “literally hundreds of thousands of children” missing their education. That is conflating a number of different things, and I do not want to give the impression that there are hundreds of thousands of children missing all their education. There were 86,200 children identified as being home educated in the spring of this year, 24,700 children were classified as children missing education on the census day, and 94,900 missed education for a period at some point in the academic year. On bringing legislation, I think the noble Lord will have seen that a Private Member’s Bill has been introduced in the other place, and he may have heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State speak warmly about it.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, a large number of children went missing from the educational roll as the pandemic ended and we lifted lockdown. What is being done specifically to identify those children and return them to the roll?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The department is working closely with schools, particularly around persistent absence and severe absence. Persistent absence is when a child is missing 10% or more of their school time, and severe absence is where a child misses 50% or more. We have an Attendance Action Alliance which the Secretary of State chairs, and we are expanding that to a number of other regional advice areas. We have expert attendance hubs and advisers working with schools to help identify and support these children back into school.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a 50% increase in home schooling since 2018-19. There is currently no inspection regime to check quality and I understand that the lack of inspection extends to home education hubs or online provision. Also, the only sanction currently applied on parents by councils where there are concerns is a school attendance order. How soon will the register mentioned by the Minister be in place, and what more will the Government do to ensure that both quality and safeguarding are front and centre of policy on home schooling?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously I cannot comment on the timing of a Private Member’s Bill. On the very valid points raised by the noble Baroness about the inspection regime, that is one of the things that we are looking at in the consultation, which closes on 18 January. In particular, we are looking at how to judge the suitability of education. Importantly, much of the work that has gone into preparing that consultation has been done with parents and local authorities together so that we can build trust in both communities going forward.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has set out very helpfully the figures relating to children who are not in school on a regular basis. This is such an important matter at a formative stage in their development. Can the House assume from these figures that each of these children has a named place in school? If so, can the Minister say, in particular, what is happening to enforce the law of the land so that these children have a proper education?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not want to say that every single child has a named place, as children can move around and there can be a time lag, but obviously it is the right of every child in this country to have a named place. On enforcement, the noble Lord understands very well that there is a balance to be struck. We need first to understand why the child is not in school and aim to address that; then, if enforcement is appropriate, that should be followed through.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of registers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others have referred, is accepted universally to be hugely urgent. Can we not have government legislation rather than waiting for a Private Member’s Bill?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that government legislation was not in the King’s Speech, but the Government remain committed to introducing statutory local authority registers for children not in school as well as a duty for local authorities to provide support to home-educating families.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that we are dealing with special educational needs here. When will we have a structure where every school has at least some expertise in how to teach for the most commonly occurring special educational needs without going to an education and health plan? When is that going to come in?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that we are introducing an NPQ—a national professional qualification—for SENCOs in schools. We are also introducing support and training for SENCOs in early years to encourage early identification.
NHS App: Medical Records
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Allan of Hallam
To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they have put in place to mitigate the risk of people being coerced into showing their confidential medical records to third parties as records become universally available through the NHS app.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government want people to have access to their own records. For most, online record access is beneficial but for a minority, having access could cause harm or distress. In many cases, practices can identify these patients and ensure that safeguarding processes are in place. Furthermore, to access the NHS app, users must prove their identity through the NHS log-in and, before entering their record, are advised what to do if they are being pressurised to share their information.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the design goals for the NHS app should be to make it as easy and frictionless as possible for legitimate users to access the system, while making it as difficult and frictionful as possible for people trying to gain unauthorised access. But there is a natural tendency to focus on the first part of this equation as developers believe in the systems they build and find it hard to put themselves in the shoes of the cunning and resourceful attackers who will try to break them. Given this dynamic, can the Minister confirm that the NHS has a red team tasked with trying to identify all possible vectors of attack on the NHS app, and that the requisite resources will be put into mitigating any risks that they identify?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct on getting that balance right between the two; that is why the NHS has a safeguarding reference group on exactly this, which has been putting in protections as well as messaging patients, telling them to be aware and that they have the opportunity to redact their records if they are concerned. There are other features, such as multi-factor authentication and making sure that, for log-in with facial ID, you cannot have anyone else in the picture, to ensure that people are not being coerced. So, there are a number of measures in place, but I completely agree that we need to keep them under review with user groups checking all the way.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, with the abundance of health data available to the NHS, what future technologies are being developed to identify patterns and trends to improve patient outcomes and reduce the pressure on the NHS?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct. As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, there are many good uses for the app and data. As we all probably know, AI is only as good as the data that underlies it. The good situation we have—it is lovely to have a story for Christmas cheer—is that our 50 million primary care and hospital records are probably second to none around the world. We are already using that to positive effect, such as for image reading and using AI for cancer scans and strokes. We can also use that data for intelligent screening and, in future, for cause and effect to find cures, hopefully one day even for dementia.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
While it is obviously important to control confidentiality of patient data, it is vital to be able to use data for medical research. Much research, such as epidemiological research, the relationship between smoking and ill health—obesity, diabetes and all sorts of diseases—would not be known much about unless we were able to handle patient data. In the rush to control, let us make sure we can still do research with patient data.
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely; it is about getting that balance correct. I welcomed the support of all sides of the House when we were introducing the FDP. A lot of work was done with noble Lords on that. The fact that the federated data platform was as well received as it was in the circumstances is because of support from all Members of the House on all sides, knowing the vital role of data in improving health outcomes.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, following the question from my noble friend Lord Allan about a red team, in the past not health data but personal financial data has been sold by subsidiaries or contractors of UK firms based abroad. I notice that we now have a deal with America on health data and GDPR. Is that true for other countries, such as India? Personal data, particularly medical data, would be seen as very valuable.
Lord Markham (Con)
The fundamental principle underlying all this is that none of the data leaves the control. The data controllers today—be it GPs, the NHS or the hospital—stay as they are, and any use of that data has to be approved outside of that. The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. We want to make sure that it is not used for any purposes that are not going to improve health outcomes, such as the ones we have talked about.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend update the House on where we are with sharing data—in particular, the outcomes of clinical trials—with our European partners?
Lord Markham (Con)
Clinical trials are among the key areas that are vital to the life sciences industry. We are all aware that, post-Covid, we were falling a bit behind. I am glad to say that now we have improved, so that 80% of the time we are doing the clinical responses in time. We can still do better; that should be 100% but 80% is good. Most importantly, our data is the envy of the world. Just to give noble Lords an example, about 90% of our hospital records are digitised. In Germany, it is less than 1%.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, easy access to medical records on the NHS app is indeed positive and helpful to many, but of course there are parents whose abusive spouse or partner might use that sensitive clinical information to undermine legal cases of custody of dependants in the family courts. What discussions have taken place with the Ministry of Justice to assess both this risk and how to avert it?
Lord Markham (Con)
In terms of averting it, there are some of the measures I was talking about. For instance, with facial recognition, if anyone else is seen in the picture, it disregards it, so that you cannot have someone else holding it or holding their head in to do it. If the person’s eyes are shut—if someone is trying to do it while you are asleep—it does not work either. Those safeguards are in place, as well as multi-factor authentication, so that if anyone tries to change their details by email or whatever, it comes back to them. We have worked with user groups on this. I will come back to the noble Baroness specifically on the Ministry of Justice conversations, but we are doing a lot in this space.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, digital transformation of the NHS at pace is being held back by the number of vacancies for digital roles within the NHS, particularly when many people are going over to the private sector for higher pay. What could the Government do to deal with this, particularly regarding the inflexible Agenda for Change?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. Digital resource is well sought after. I was approving something just the other day which gives us more flexibility in that space, because sometimes you have to pay over and above to get people on it. As we all agree, this is vital to the future of what we are trying to do.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as more people who are able to are switching between the National Health Service and private medical care for specific operations, is the Minister confident that relevant information is then transferred back to a single patient record? This will be very important if, for instance, somebody needs emergency care or is involved in an accident. Is the data all being kept in one place?
Lord Markham (Con)
Patient records is what the federated data platform is very good at, in terms of drawing data and information from all sorts of sources into one place, so it is always in the ownership of the person, the GP or the individual place. You can make your data available to the private care providers, if you are having an operation with them, for instance, but the data always remains within the NHS and in the ownership of the person.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is the Minister confident, in all the talk about advances in technology, that data-sharing within the NHS is fit for purpose? We frequently encounter an apparent disconnect between different departments in the NHS, or different levels of care, where information which should be available to everybody is palpably not or, if it is, it is not being taken any notice of.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. While I think everybody would say that 90% digitisation is pretty good—it is not 100%, but it is pretty good—always making sure people are talking to each other is often the issue. I am sure we have all had examples of that. That is what the federated data platform helps to do, in terms of drawing it all in. For example, Chelsea and Westminster has put what was on 10 different spreadsheets and records into one place. We are getting a lot better at that, but is it perfect and seamless? No, there is still some work to be done.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given the importance of medical research, for the development of advances in knowledge and for inward investment into this country in research, what consideration is being given to ensuring that patients in different disease groups can be asked whether they would consent to being informed about clinical studies that may be relevant to their condition? This is so that pre-consent to being approached is being built into the system, because we know that one of the big delays in recruitment into clinical studies is the process of case finding and consent, particularly for less common conditions and when patients are living in more rural and remote areas.
Lord Markham (Con)
It is fair to say that we have made massive improvements. At the beginning of the year, we only had around 10% of patients with GP records available in the app but today it is 80%, which is a massive change. That allows us to do things like “Be Part of Research” which we have had hundreds of thousands of people volunteer for. We have not yet taken it to the next stage, so that you can get ahead of the curve for approvals for certain types, as the noble Baroness said, but the beauty of all this is that it gives all the opportunities for the future. As it is my last time standing up this year, I would like to finish by wishing everyone a happy Christmas.
Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government why, having suffered a defeat in the High Court, they are seeking to revive the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, the High Court overturned the Government’s previous repeal of Regulation 7 of the conduct regulations due to insufficient consultation. The Government continue to believe there is a strong case for removing what is a blanket restriction, which disproportionately interferes with the freedoms of both employers and agency workers. The purpose of the consultation is to gather views and evidence to better inform a future decision on whether to proceed with repealing Regulation 7.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for the reply, but I am sure he realises that there is no demand whatever for this measure from employers or trade unions. Rather like the deduction of TU subs, which was debated yesterday, this is seen as a being a rather spiteful attack on trade unions. How many more Conservative votes does the Minister wish to dispose of from the trade union movement? I also have a question for the Labour Opposition. I was at the TUC on 9 December, and there was a widespread feeling of “We’ll believe it when we see it” around the changes we may or may not get to trade union legislation. I did send the Leader of the Opposition an email—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
I remind my noble friend that this is Questions for Ministers, not the Opposition.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary question. The right to strike is enshrined in UK law. There is no ambition on the part of the Government to undermine that fundamental right. But there is a balance to be struck between the rights of employers and agency workers being able to find work if there is work available. Therefore, this consultation will focus entirely on whether there is a need for private companies to be able to provide agency staff where they have a need for employment.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the REC, which supplies agency staff, warns that allowing bosses to bus in strike-breakers risks extending disputes by inflaming tensions between trade unions and employers. Unions and even the Government’s own impact assessment agree it will undoubtably worsen industrial relations and lead to prolonged strike action. How can the Minister possibly justify pushing ahead with these damaging and counterproductive measures when employers, unions and even the Government—that is a first—all agree it will poison industrial relations and make it much more difficult to resolve disputes?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Well-run companies can operate only with the consent of their workforce. Well-run bosses run companies well with the consent of their workforce. Therefore, no well-run company wants to be a position where there are disputes with its workforce except in extremist situations. Bringing in agency workers is never a panacea, and is quite often more expensive. Well-run companies would not want to do that. It would be only in extreme situations where I could ever envisage this happening.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, on 20 June 2016, the relevant committee of the International Labour Organization called on the Government to review the proposal to revoke Regulation 7 with the social partners—that is to say the unions and employers’ associations—bearing in mind that
“the use of striker replacements should be limited to industrial action in essential services”.
The Government’s response was to undertake to the ILO that they would conduct such a review. However, by 13 July this year—seven years later—in the judgment to which the noble Lord refers, the Government had not done so. Will they do so now?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
To be very clear, the appeal was put forward on two bases: the first was on the lack of consultation and the second was on the merits of Article 11. The court did not find on the second, only on the first. Therefore, the consultation is being done between now and mid-January, with a view to collecting views from all registered parties so that a decision can be made in the future or not.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given that nobody wants this—the employers and the trade unions do not want it—what is motivating the Government to bring forward legislation that nobody wants?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
As I said before, a decision has not been made on this—a consultation is going on. Regulation 7 is in some ways interference with the operation of private companies and other employers, and sometimes prevents work-seekers being offered employment in legitimate circumstances. We are trying to get the balance right here between maintaining the right to strike and providing companies with the ability to service their clients and fulfil their revenue.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister inform the House, either now or in a Written Statement, of the cost of developing, processing, enacting and defending this unlawful legislation? Can he also promise to refer this legislation and the court case to the newly appointed Minister of State without portfolio as an example of how the Government waste public money?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I think the decision was made on the basis that the court decided that full consultation had not taken place on what we would all agree is an important matter in employment law. It was quite legitimate to say that the consultation should be rerun. It was decided not to appeal the decision—so public money was saved in that regard—but that the consultation should be now run in the ordinary course.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for his support and his dogged opposition to this terrible legislation. I want to state again that employers do not want it, trade unions do not want it and the High Court has ruled against it, so what are these exceptional circumstances that the Minister has just mentioned?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
There are legitimate circumstances where a company wants to fulfil its orders and contracts, and look after its clients, and, for whatever reason, it can find agency staff but the workforce do not want to work. I agree that it is an unusual situation. All this is doing is trying to balance the rights of employers and employees.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend at some stage—he may not have the answer today—look at all the legislation that has been passed by successive Conservative Governments on trade union reform? Will he place in the Library a list of all those that have been reversed subsequently by any Labour Government?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
It actually exists—it is three pages long and will take 10 minutes to read. It is very clear: most of it outlines the Conservative reform agenda for trade unions, and there is a very small section on Labour reverses.
Minister for Disabled People
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the status of the Minister for disabled people was downgraded from that of Minister of State to that of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
All Ministers speak with the authority of the Government, and it is for the Prime Minister to decide how responsibility is allocated. The role of Minister for Disabled People has been undertaken at both Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State level in the past. The new Minister has been at the Department for Work and Pensions since 2019 and has the ability to get things done and extensive experience of the issues that disabled people face.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, disabled people are horrified by the Prime Minister’s decision. DWP estimates that 16 million people have a disability— that is one in four—and they face multiple barriers in their lives beyond DWP. It is harder to get a job— 29 percentage points less—their financial position is much worse, they have to spend much more on energy, and other barriers remain for health, education and transport. The former role of the Minister of State for Disabled People could focus on influencing change but the new PUS is covering a large portfolio including housing benefit, the military covenant and youth. Why have this Government once again downgraded support for disabled people?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not see it as a downgrade at all. The previous Minister was also the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. To the extent that portfolios are changed, when Ministers are experienced—I know this myself—you can sometimes improve how the work is done through these other areas. There is a big example here in the back to work package announced in the Autumn Statement. We really need that multibillion-pound package pushed through with vigour and energy, which I am sure the new Minister for the Disabled will deliver.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, not only have the Government downgraded the role of Minister for Disabled People but a recent report of the Women and Equalities Committee concluded that:
“The National Disability Strategy does not resemble a strategy”,
and that engagement with disabled people in its formulation was poor to say the least. What steps are the Government taking to try to restore—or perhaps I should say build—the confidence of disabled people and the organisations that represent them?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Government are doing just that. The noble Baroness will know that the national disability strategy promised in the 2019 manifesto was held up in the courts. That is now behind us because the courts found in favour of the Government. We are also developing a disability action plan for the next 12 months. These are immediate actions to help people. The consultation on the action plan closed in October, and we will carry that forward very soon.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, when the definitive Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed, not only was there a senior Minister of State in charge but the then Prime Minister, John Major, took a direct personal interest in that matter. Does the present Prime Minister take any personal interest?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The present Prime Minister does take an interest. I re-emphasise that the Budget had a major package for the disabled. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions represents the disabled at Cabinet. Even more importantly, we all have a duty in relation to the disabled. I work to try to get the disabled into public appointments; we debated One Login in the Moses Room and talked about its accessibility. The whole point about the strategy is that it is cross-cutting, and it helps us to move forward and help the disabled into life, because they can make such a great contribution.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, so important is the title “Minister for Disabled People” that I managed to persuade Mrs Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, to change the name to that from its original name, Minister for the Disabled, because disabled people do not like being called “the disabled”. At first the Prime Minister objected, saying, “They’ll want to change all the notepaper”. I said, “Yes, they will, but make them use up all the old notepaper first”. Using this economic principle, could we not find some way of doing what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, suggested and restoring the name, even though the pay may not be restored to what it should be?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Mims Davies is the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, but I do not think we should spend all our time focusing on titles. I do not want to tread on my noble friend Lord Younger’s toes but, having studied this subject in preparation, I was trying to talk a little about what we will actually do for the disabled. Of course we need to respect them and talk about them in an appropriate way but, as noble Lords will know, it is important to have action and get things done.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, words matter, but action matters even more. Are my back-of-an-envelope sums right—is Mims Davies now the 13th Minister for Disabled People since the Government came to power in 2010? If so, does the Minister think that all this moving around is damaging things? For example, it is introducing massive delays to the Access to Work scheme, which left one autistic woman waiting 13 months to get a job. We need some action now, do we not?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Baroness may be right: perhaps Ministers do move around more than is ideal on occasions. I was delighted to discover that I was not moving in the last reshuffle and can continue. The key thing is to focus on the work in hand, and I believe Mims Davies will do that, with support from across the Cabinet.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, was not one of the greatest Ministers for the Disabled the late Alf Morris, and was he not a Parliamentary Under-Secretary?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I also mention my noble friend Lord Hague, who in the 1990s took through Parliament some ground-breaking legislation on the disabled that has changed the infrastructure of the UK. Those of us who were in business found it quite challenging at the time—I see noble Lords around the House nodding—but it has had a beneficial effect across the UK economy.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, even with a Minister of State in place, we have repeatedly seen regulations and legislation over recent years ignore the needs and concerns of disabled people. You can point to Covid regulations, the aborted social care cap and, most recently, the Online Safety Act, which was silent on the needs of adults with learning disabilities. Given that, how will this Government take a more holistic look at legislation and ensure that the varied needs of the varied communities of people with disabilities are addressed in regulations and legislation going forward?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I mentioned the convening work done across departments, which is important in relation to legislation, as the noble Baroness says. Obviously, the Covid inquiry is looking at what happened during Covid, and these are the sorts of issues that I hope it will tackle. On individual Bills, I know from those I have done that we often debate disability—perhaps sometimes in response to amendments from the noble Baroness and others. That is very useful because it gives departments an opportunity to explain what they are doing. We have duties to the disabled and other groups, and we need to make sure that we take them seriously.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, given the cross-cutting work that the Minister has described and feels so confident about, can she tell the House when the Government are next due to report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? What are the challenges from the last reporting cycle that the Government will be keen to address in that report?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
This not being my area, I am not able to answer the question fully, but officials are due to represent the UK and attend the meeting of the UN in March to discuss these issues. I am certainly happy to take away any particular concerns that the noble Baroness would like me to pass on.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, many people, including everybody in this and the other House, want to help disabled people. We have talked in this House about their having work. Does the Minister agree that hundreds of thousands of small companies would be prepared, if approached, to give disabled people what they would really like: the opportunity to work—if they can—and be part of society in the normal way?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a great point, and noble Lords will know that I am very concerned about small businesses and how we can help them. This point needs to be taken into account in the work we are doing, following the Autumn Statement, to help millions more disabled people into work. I came from Tesco, and we employed a lot of disabled people who made a very valuable contribution to the business over many years. Some noble Lords will have met the leading official on the Procurement Act in the Cabinet Office, who was a blind senior civil servant. It just goes to show what a contribution they can make in both small and big business.
Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 October and 7 November be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the second instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023
Lord Roborough
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 December.
Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 November be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 December.
Child Support (Management of Payments and Arrears and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 December.
Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
Lord Gascoigne
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 December.
Tributes
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as we move towards the Recess, we should take time to pay tribute to members of staff who are leaving your Lordships’ House after periods of long and exemplary service. It goes without saying that we in the usual channels, and noble Lords from across the House, are in debt to staff of all grades and tenure for keeping this workplace functioning. Every year, they wrestle with new challenges. We are thankful for their support.
Having said that, as is traditional, I also want to take the opportunity to start tributes to individuals who have retired from their duties this year. My eyes turn first to the marshalled forces that guard this great Chamber. I have the privilege of first commending Karen Bridgman, who has served as a doorkeeper for over 10 years. When Karen left on 30 November 2023, she left an imprint of kindness and generosity on the doorkeepers’ team. Karen was proactive and she sought to fix a problem before it burdened the team. Her colleagues praised her pleasant attitude and the time she made available for everyone who came across her path. These characteristics, when twinned together, made her into an incomparable doorkeeper and friend. The truest compliments are those that are said about you in your absence. The mark that Karen has left in this House continues to be felt and voiced by those who worked closest with her.
I now turn to Tim Banting, who retired this year from the Parliamentary Archives team. Tim joined the archives in 2010, where he became a much-valued member of the heritage photographers’ branch of the office. Tim was renowned for creating high-quality images of archival documents for users of the archives, as well as for exhibitions and other forms of public engagement. He was instrumental in supporting the move from microfilm to digital cameras, and in the modernisation of the digitisation studio. I am told that his passion for photography went beyond his professional capacity. Tim created then and now images of the Palace. One of Tim’s photographs of the Commons Chamber was subsequently shortlisted for the 2018 Historic Photographer of the Year awards. I am sure it was Tim’s ability to crop out the scaffolding boards and construction hoardings from his parliamentary photographs that endeared him to the Administration. After 13 years in this place, Tim will be much missed and we wish him well in his retirement.
Finally, I would like to thank the team in the Government Whips’ Office and colleagues across the usual channels for their support in the last year, and in particular for me personally over the last couple of weeks. As you know, the Whips’ Office serves not just the Front Bench but the entire House. My colleagues and I are grateful for their hard work and I wish them, all the staff of the House and all noble Lords a very merry Christmas.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I associate myself with all the remarks made by the noble Earl, the Government Deputy Chief Whip. He has done a very good job in the last couple of weeks, and I want to pay tribute to the Opposition Whips’ Office and the usual channels. We work well together and I always appreciate how we work together during the year in sometimes difficult situations. With courtesy and friendship, we can usually resolve most problems.
It is my privilege to mention two particular people who have served the House well over many years. The first is Stephen Perkins, who joined as the Head of the Catering and Retail Service in the House of Lords eight years ago, bringing with him many years of experience within the catering industry, working for companies within the contract catering sector, notably the Zoological Society of London. One of his first achievements after joining was to successfully deliver the outcomes of the catering change programme. This was a significant body of work, focusing on changes to the catering service, including flexible working patterns for staff and adjustments to the style and types of catering provided, the positive outcome being a catering service that was efficient and effective and that well supported the needs of the House.
During his time with the catering service, Stephen was also responsible for the implementation of the Cater 2020 digital project, delivering technological improvements to the catering operations that benefited both catering staff and users of the service. In more recent times, Stephen ably led the team to ensure that appropriate catering was provided as part of Operation Marquee, after the passing of Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth II.
Stephen had a warm, personable approach and, as such, was very well respected by colleagues within the catering service, but also by Members of the House, members of staff and more widely through other offices within the Administration. We have calculated that, throughout his eight years with the service, Stephen will have been directly responsible for over 2.1 million transactions within the catering venues in the House, as well as over 7,000 catered private events, attended by over 600,000 visitors to Parliament.
We wish Stephen well in his retirement, with the knowledge that he will have more time to spend on some of his other interests, including golf and Liverpool Football Club. He will also be able to further his appreciation of good food and wine, thankfully now from the perspective of a guest.
John Hanlon, who recently retired as a doorkeeper, for me epitomises public service. I first got to know John when he was a serving Metropolitan Police Officer, based here at the Palace of Westminster. He was friendly, approachable, kind and always prepared to go the extra mile to help people on the Parliamentary Estate, be they Members of either House, staff or members of the public visiting for the day. In total, John served as a Metropolitan Police Officer for 32 years. During his time as a police officer, he worked on many incidents, including the King’s Cross fire and the Clapham Junction train crash. He then spent 10 years in the vice unit at Charing Cross police station, dealing with vulnerable and trafficked women, before joining the police unit based here in the Palace of Westminster. John is a person who knows someone in every walk of life and was always willing to help others, while always aware that his primary duty as a police officer was to keep people safe and secure.
He has a very dry sense of humour, and there are many stories one could tell about John. He has been a supporter and non-playing member of the parliamentary rugby team for many years, travelling when he could to support them, and I recall many occasions when we would both be at Murrayfield to watch either Scotland v England or Scotland v Ireland games during the Six Nations.
On retirement from the Metropolitan Police, John joined us as a doorkeeper. In that role, he excelled, using his natural friendliness to help Members, staff and the public. The doorkeepers are a very special part of the parliamentary family, and John excelled at the job and very quickly gave the impression that he had been doing it for many years.
John grew up in Edinburgh and plans to move back to that wonderful city next year. He is a proud Scotsman, but he is also proud of being British and proud of his Irish heritage—something I share with John. I last saw John at the Irish embassy party last Wednesday, wearing his London Irish tie and enjoying a well-deserved pint of Guinness. He is a Celtic Football Club supporter and gets to Celtic Park whenever he can—although I do not think we should dwell on last Saturday’s results. I fear his good friend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, might remind him of the Hearts win when he next sees him.
He was a regular in the Woolsack after work and, when he retired, his friends named an area in the Woolsack “Hanlon’s Corner”, in recognition of his service to this Palace and the Members here, as a police officer and doorkeeper for many years. He will be greatly missed by all of his friends, including me. I hope though for many years to be meeting John at rugby events, Irish embassy functions, and even a home game or two at Celtic Park.
We wish John all the very best for the future, and a long and happy retirement in Edinburgh where he plans to spend more time with his children, Kate and Sean. He is a keen amateur photographer, and he told me only a couple of days ago that he intends to climb as many Munros as possible before the mountain rescue unit tells him to stop. He also plans to travel extensively around the world. I wish him a long and happy retirement.
I also wish all Members of the House, all members of staff and everyone who works on the estate to keep us safe and secure a safe and joyful Christmas and new year.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I would love to join John in the rugby, for sure.
It is a privilege to be asked to give these tributes on behalf of these Benches. The quality and professionalism of the staff who serve this House is indeed one of its hallmarks. It is something that struck me forcefully when I first joined your Lordships’ House, and something that we are reminded of every day.
Yet, like the iceberg, we mainly see those with whom we come into contact. For every one of those visible people, there are many more whom we never or rarely see and yet on whom the smooth running of this House depends. As is demonstrated day after day, year after year, they always deliver. It has been yet another busy year.
My two retirees fit into one of each category: Trudy Collins, a principal attendant, who was very visible, and Mary Cruickshank, a freelance reporter, beavering quietly away in Hansard. Trudy left us in May, having given almost 27 years’ service from 1999, when she made her own little piece of history by being the first female attendant. That must have been quite something, working originally in Black Rod’s department, to her leaving us at a time when we now have the first female Black Rod; that is long overdue, of course.
Trudy rose through the ranks to principal attendant, spending much of her time in the Palace but latterly at Millbank House. It was said of her that she was the first to offer a cup of tea and a friendly chat and was always willing to help, which of course made her very popular with both staff and Members, as such kindnesses were noted and valued. She also worked with many young starters and apprentice attendants, acting as a mentor, giving much support and valuable advice, and showing similar kindnesses to new Members. I am sure the same was bestowed upon her apparently numerous animal friends, including dogs, chickens, tropical fish and parrots, which must have helped her when herding us cats in your Lordships’ House.
Now, to Mary. She joined Hansard as a freelance reporter, following a successful career in journalism. She clearly enjoyed the change, as she stayed with us for over 10 years. That previous role meant that she brought with her a wealth of experience, which she swiftly and ably transferred to the parliamentary context. During challenging times—especially, her colleagues said, during the tough times of the pandemic—they were grateful for her steady hand. Most importantly, they felt that she brought great personal warmth and congeniality to the office, which they will undoubtedly miss. Both these valued members of staff have earned their retirement, and we wish them well in the next chapter of their lives.
Finally, I know that the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Stoneham, would want me to thank all those in the Government Whips’ Office for all their work this year and particularly for their patience in making sure that things run smoothly in the usual channels. I also thank our own office staff in the Liberal Democrat office. They have much to put up with, and they do it so well.
I wish everyone a joyful Christmas. We know that whatever 2024 throws at us, we are indeed in capable hands.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I join my colleagues very much in thanking all the staff, both in and of the House, not just for their hard work this year but for the good humour that bubbles up so often, which has enabled the House to function very well, even during our rather regularly odd hours.
I pay tribute to Carl Woodall, recently our Director of Facilities, who retired in March. He worked in the House for 14 years and was the first ever Director of Facilities. At an early stage of my time in the House, I used to call on him in room 25, a rather splendid room just at the top of the stairs, having no idea at all that Carl had 200 staff working for him and that he ran a very large number of bits and pieces of the House. I got it completely wrong. I went to his room regularly, asking him about a dustbin or whatever it was, and he would always have time for me, he would always be polite, and the dustbin, or whatever it was, would appear. That was him to a T.
Carl was instrumental in bringing on our successful banqueting department, and in revitalising the shop, which was very helpful for me for my Christmas shopping this year. I find that there are many things in it that are a pleasure to give and a pleasure to own. He oversaw many initiatives, including, importantly, several addressing fire safety, such as the Mobility Impaired Persons project. Each of these initiatives has resulted in a better and safer Westminster for Members, staff and the public.
When Covid-19 hit, Carl was key in enabling the House to continue to exercise its core functions. He worked extremely hard to ensure that the House was operatable and safe. He was the man putting up all the arrows in the various different passageways so that we did not run into each other. He virtually slept here while that was being set up. He was the longest serving member of the management board, and indeed the chair of its health and safety committee. He was known for always standing up for his staff, especially staff who did not have a desk. His warm smile, consistent work ethic and collaborative approach mean that he will be missed.
Finally, on behalf of the Cross Benches, I add my own version of Happy Christmas to all the staff and Members who have helped us throughout the year. I wish everyone a Happy Christmas.
Trial of Jimmy Lai
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too, like Iain Duncan Smith, welcome the change of rhetoric by the Foreign Secretary, who said yesterday that
“Jimmy Lai is a British citizen”
and called on the Chinese Government to release him. As Catherine West said, hopefully the Foreign Secretary’s intervention will not be a one-off, and we will continue to stand up for Jimmy in a sustained way and to maintain what I hope will be regular and effective communication with his family.
I know the Minister will not mention specific designations, but does he agree that more use of the Magnitsky sanctions is really important? Also, is there not a clear need for a cross-departmental China strategy to ensure that we can be effective in challenging China on these horrendous human rights abuses?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his words. On his first point about the Magnitsky measures that were included in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, I was involved in that process. They are robust and they stack up with similar measures that have been brought in by so many countries through the hard work of a great many people but particularly Bill Browder. They have applications right across the civilised world against acts of gross human rights abuse. We will continue to consider designations under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations. We do not speculate about those, and is quite right that we do not. On 6 July 2020, the then Foreign Secretary announced the global human rights sanctions regime, allowing the UK to target human rights violators directly for the first time.
The noble Lord also asked about our China strategy. I refer him to the integrated review refresh, which has a very clearly set out approach to China—to protect, to align and to engage. Examples under protection are the National Security and Investment Act, removing surveillance equipment from sensitive government sites, and banning TikTok on government devices. Examples under alignment are deepening co-operation with core allies and a broader group of partners, G7 leaders and the like.
On engagement, we are strengthening contact with China. We invited China to the AI Safety Summit, we deliver messages on those occasions on human rights, and we press China not to support Russia. We will continue that kind of engagement, which we think is the right approach. It is all set out in the integrated review.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, it is good to hear that the Foreign Secretary is supporting the rights of Jimmy Lai. Can the Minister tell the House what His Majesty’s Government are doing in practical terms to try to re-engage China on the Sino-British agreement? In the other place yesterday, the Minister of State, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, simply said that
“the breaching of the Sino-British joint declaration is a great tragedy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/23; col. 1126.]
That sounds a bit like hand-wringing. Is any more being done?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Sino-British declaration is a bilateral agreement registered with the United Nations. It is vital that we continue to raise it when we think it is being abused or when measures are being taken that are not in keeping with it or the values that underpin it, and we do that regularly. I have a list—I do not have time to relay it to the House now—of the times when we have raised these issues and examples of our continuing to raise them both bilaterally and multilaterally. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that words are just that: words. The actions one can take when one side of a party is failing to sustain a bilateral agreement are very difficult to take, but we will continue to find all methods to raise the importance of this declaration.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my non-financial interests as listed in the register. I know Jimmy Lai and his family personally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I are sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party. Is this Stalinesque show trail of Jimmy Lai not a moment of reckoning for all who claim that they value the rule of law, human rights, press freedom and democracy? Is it not a moment of reckoning for the duplicitous belief that you can deepen trade deals while United Kingdom citizens and 1,762 political prisoners are incarcerated in Hong Kong jails? In calling for Mr Lai’s immediate and unconditional release, can the Minister say what practical steps we are giving him and his family? Do we intend to respond robustly if other United Kingdom citizens are caught in this CCP spiders’ web? Why are we not sanctioning those responsible, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked? What more will we do to expose this charade and travesty of a sham show trial that makes a mockery of justice and the rule of law?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for what he and others have done, and for their involvement with organisations such as Hong Kong Watch. The situation is exactly as he describes. He asked what the Government are doing to support Jimmy Lai and his family. We have met Sebastien Lai, as I know the noble Lord has; we are working with Doughty Street Chambers, which is running a very effective international campaign; and we have sought to provide consular access to Jimmy Lai, although it has been refused. The attempt by Jimmy Lai to have the legal support of his choice went to the highest court of appeal in Hong Kong, but that was rejected. At every stage, we have sought to represent the needs of a British citizen, and we will continue to do so. We will continue to seek consular access, which is currently being denied by the Hong Kong prison service, and to try to support his family here and around the world, while making sure that the campaign is as effective as it can be to get Jimmy Lai released.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about the fake nature of the charges concocted against Jimmy Lai. Many noble Lords will not know the details of this case, but it really is shocking. I am a member of Doughty Street Chambers, which is involved in the case. The charges are not only a way of dealing with one of the most eminent businesspeople in Hong Kong; their purpose is to threaten and silence others who are speaking about the erosion of democracy and the rule of law there. I am grateful to the new Foreign Secretary for what he has been doing, and I thank the team working with him on this. There are real threats to the legal team, so what advice and help with security is being given to them? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I have both experienced the business of being sanctioned. I am being attacked in cyber ways all the time, and I have the benefit of security advice from this House, so I wonder whether that is happening to the other lawyers involved. Is the trial conforming to due process and do we have observers in the court? Will those of us involved in following this case and campaigning be told what is happening during the trial?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I pay enormous tribute to the noble Baroness for her work. The answer to her latter question is that we have consular staff attending the court daily and they are reporting back on the proceedings. She is right that it is a sham trial and that we need to make sure that we are raising this issue on every occasion possible. We are working with teams of expert lawyers, both nationally and internationally, and we are supporting Jimmy Lai in any way we can. The Foreign Secretary’s response was very robust and clear. This will continue to be raised at the highest level, as it has been recently, in bilateral meetings with the Chinese Government.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary on a much more robust approach. This is not happening only in Hong Kong; it is part of a much wider movement right across China, where not only human rights but religious rights are being denied. Churches are being knocked down, pastors are being arrested and, most notoriously of all, there is, many people would argue, a genocide of the Uighur people. What are we doing with our colleagues internationally to press China on these rights in a consistent, long-term way that is backed up by sanctions?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. The Sino-British joint declaration is an internationally registered, legally binding treaty between the UK and China, under which China committed to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and to protect the rights and freedoms of its people. This explicitly includes freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief; that is why we need to make sure that this declaration is upheld.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. Jonathan Price, one of the members of the international legal team—which, as the Minister said, was denied the right to represent Mr Lai—said that
“the rule of law is eroded”
in Hong Kong. That is very evident to us all. Are the Government taking sufficient steps to warn British businesses engaged, or considering engaging, in Hong Kong that the rule of law does not exist there? Are they taking sufficient account of the fact that a number of British businesses—notably, banks—are cosying up to the Chinese regime in Hong Kong? Are the Government concerned about that and prepared to take action?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Foreign Office makes very clear the rules that should apply to all companies when they do business in different parts of the world, and to access and travel. We believe that the right kind of trade with China and Hong Kong is right; it is a good way of engaging with a country and of using those occasions to make sure that we are making the points about human rights. We have very strict rules in this country that require businesses to declare their supply chains in a whole variety of ways. There are rules covering some of the things the noble Baroness talked about. What is really important is that we focus on the case of Jimmy Lai and recognise that it concerns not only him but others. This is a human rights issue that the Government take very seriously and we want to see it resolved very soon.
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Tuesday 19th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 View all Data Protection and Digital Information Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 November 2023 - large print - (29 Nov 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
My Lords, in a time of rapid technological change, we need people to trust in how we can use data for greater good. By building understanding and confidence in the rules surrounding how we use data, we can unlock its real potential, not only for businesses but for people going about their everyday lives.
In 2018 Parliament passed the Data Protection Act, which was the UK’s implementation of the EU general data protection regulation. While the EU GDPR protected the privacy rights of individuals, there were unintended consequences. It resulted in high costs and a disproportionate compliance burden for small businesses. These reforms deliver on the Government’s promise to use the opportunity afforded to us by leaving the European Union to create a new and improved UK data rights regime.
The Bill has five parts that deliver on individual elements of these reforms. Part 1 updates and simplifies the UK GDPR and DPA 2018 to ease compliance burdens on businesses and introduce safeguards from new technologies. It also updates the similar regimes that apply to law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. Part 2 enables DSIT’s digital verification services policy, giving people secure options to prove their identity digitally across different sectors of the economy if they choose to do so. Part 3 establishes a framework to set up smart data schemes across the economy. Part 4 reforms the privacy and electronic communications regulations—PECR—to bring stronger protection for consumers against nuisance calls. It also contains reforms to ensure the better use of data in health and adult social care, law enforcement and security. Part 5 will modernise the Information Commissioner’s Office by making sure that it has the capabilities and the powers to tackle organisations that breach data rules, giving the ICO freedom to better allocate its resources and ensuring that it is more accountable to Parliament and to the public.
I stress that the Bill will continue to maintain the highest standards of data protection that people rightly expect. It will also help those who use our data to make our lives healthier, safer and more prosperous. That is because we have convened industry leaders and experts to codesign the Bill with us throughout its creation. This legislation will ensure that our regulation reflects the way in which real people live their lives and run their businesses.
On Report in the other place, we tabled a number of amendments to strengthen the fundamental elements of the Bill and to reflect the Government’s commitment to unleash the power of data across our economy and society. I take this opportunity to thank Members of Parliament and the numerous external stakeholders who have worked with us to ensure that the Bill functions at its absolute best. Taken together, these amendments will benefit the economy by £10.6 billion over 10 years. This is more than double the estimated impact of the Bill when introduced in the spring.
These reforms are expected to lower the compliance burden on businesses. We expect small and micro-businesses to achieve greater overall compliance cost savings than larger business. We expect these compliance cost savings for small and micro-business compliance to be approximately £90 million a year as a result of the domestic data protection policies in the Bill.
The Bill makes it clear that the amount that any organisation needs to do to comply and demonstrate compliance should be directly related to the risk its processing activities pose to individuals. That means that in the future, organisations will have to keep records of their processing activities, undertake risk assessments and designate senior responsible individuals to manage data protection risks only if their processing activities are likely to pose high risks to individuals. We are also removing the need for organisations to do detailed legitimate interest assessments and document the outcomes when their activities are clearly in the public interest—for example, when they are reporting child safeguarding concerns. This will help reduce the amount of privacy paperwork and allow businesses to invest time and resources elsewhere.
Let me make this absolutely clear: enabling more effective use of data and ensuring high data protection standards are not contradictory objectives. Businesses need to understand and to trust in our data protection rules, and that is what these measures are designed to achieve. At the same time, people across the UK need to fundamentally trust that the system works for them too. We know that lots of organisations already have good processes for how they deal with data protection complaints, and it is right that we strengthen this. By making these a requirement, the Bill helps data subjects exercise their rights and directly challenge organisations they believe are misusing their data.
We already have a world-leading independent regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is only right that we continue to provide the ICO with the tools it needs to keep pace with our dramatically changing tech landscape. The ICO needs to keep our personal data safe while ensuring that it remains accountable, flexible and fit for the modern world. We are modernising the structure and objectives of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Under this legislation, protecting our personal data will remain the ICO’s primary focus, but it will also need to consider how it can empower businesses and organisations to drive growth and innovation across the UK and support public trust and confidence in the use of personal data. We must ensure that our world-leading regulator is equipped to tackle the biggest and most important threats and data breaches, protecting individuals from the highest harm. The Bill means that the ICO can take a more proportionate approach to how it gets involved in individual disputes, not having to do so too early in the process before people have had a chance to resolve things sensibly themselves, while still being the ultimate guardian of data subjects’ rights.
The Bill will create a modern ICO that can tackle the modern, more sophisticated challenges of today and support businesses across the UK to make safe, effective use of data to grow and to innovate. It will also unlock the potential of transformative technologies by making sure that organisations know when they can use responsible automated decision-making and that people know when they can request human intervention where these decisions impact their lives.
Alongside this, there are billions of pounds to be seized in the booming global data-driven trade. With the new international transfers regime, we are clarifying our regime for building data bridges to secure the close, free and safe exchange of data with trusted allies. Alongside new data bridges, the Secretary of State will be able to recognise new transfer mechanisms for businesses to protect international transfers. Businesses will still be able to transfer data across borders with the compliant mechanisms they already use, avoiding needless checks and costs.
The Bill will allow people to control more of their data. It will support smart data schemes that empower consumers and small businesses to make better use of their own data, building on the extraordinary success of open banking, where consumers and businesses access innovative services to manage their finances and spending, track their carbon footprint or access credit. Open banking is already estimated to have the potential to bring in £12 billion each year for consumers and £6 billion for small businesses, as well as boosting innovation in our world-leading fintech industry. With this Bill, we can extend the same benefits for consumers and business across the economy.
Another way the Bill ensures that people have control of their own data is by making it easier and more secure for people to prove things about themselves. Digital identities will help those who choose to use them to prove their identity electronically rather than always having to dig out stacks of physical documents such as passports, bills, statements and birth certificates. Digital verification services are already in existence and we want to put them on a secure and trusted footing, giving people more choice and confidence as they navigate everyday tasks, and saving businesses time and money.
The Bill supports the growing demand, domestic and global, for secure and trusted electronic transactions such as qualified electronic signatures. It also makes provision for the preservation of important data for coronial investigations in the event of a child taking their own life. Any death of a child is a tragedy, and the Government have the utmost sympathy for families affected by this tragic issue. I recognise, and I share, the strong feelings on this issue expressed by noble Lords on this matter and during the passage of the Online Safety Act.
The new provision requires Ofcom, following notification from a coroner, to issue data preservation notices requiring relevant tech companies to hold data that they may have relating to a deceased child’s use of online services in circumstances where the coroner suspects that the child has taken their own life. This greatly strengthens Ofcom’s and a coroner’s ability to access data from online services and provides them with the tools they need to carry out their job. It will include, for example, if a child had taken their own life after interacting with self-harm or other harmful content online, or if they suspect that a child may have been subjected to coercion, online bullying or harassment. It would also include cases where a child has done an intentional act that has caused their death but where they may not have intended to die, such as the tragic circumstances where a child dies accidentally when attempting to recreate an online challenge.
The new provisions do not cover children’s deaths caused by homicide, because the police already have extensive investigative powers in this context. These were strengthened last year by the entry into force of the UK-US data access agreement, which enables law enforcement to directly access content of communications held by US-based companies for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious crimes, such as murder and child sexual abuse and exploitation.
The families who have been courageously campaigning after their children were tragically murdered did not have access to this agreement because it entered into force only last October. To date, 10,000 requests for data have been made under it. However, we understand their concerns, and the Secretary of State, along with Justice Ministers, will work with noble Lords ahead of Committee and carefully listen to their arguments on potential amendments. We absolutely recognise the need to give families the answers they need and to ensure that there is no gap in the law.
Some aspects of the GDPR are very complex, causing uncertainty around how it applies and hampering private and public bodies’ ability to use data as dynamically as they could. The Bill will help scientists make the most of data by ensuring that they can be reused for other related studies. This is achieved by removing burdensome requirements for scientific researchers, so that they can dedicate more time to focus on what they do best. The Bill will also simplify the legal requirements around research and bring legal clarity. This is achieved by transposing definitions of scientific, historical and statistical-purposes research into the operative text.
The Bill will improve the way that the NHS and adult social care organise data to deliver crucial health services in England. It will also improve the efficiency of data protection for law enforcement and national security partners, encouraging better use of personal data to help protect the public. The Bill will save up to 1.5 million hours of police time each year.
The Bill will also allow us to take further steps to safeguard our national security, by addressing risks from hostile agents seeking to access our data or damage our data infrastructure. It will allow the DWP to protect taxpayers’ money from falling into the hands of fraudsters, as part of the DWP’s biggest reform to fraud legislation in 20 years. We know that, over this last year, overpayments to capital fraud and error in universal credit alone were almost £900 million. It is time to modernise and strengthen the DWP’s legislative framework to ensure that it gives those fighting fraud and error the tools that they need and so that it stands up to future challenges.
Through the Bill we are revolutionising the way we install, maintain, operate and repair pipes and cables buried beneath the ground. I am sure we have all, knowingly or not, been impacted by one of the 60,000 accidental strikes on an underground pipe or cable that happen every year. The national underground asset register—NUAR—is a brand new digital map that gives planners and excavators secure and instant access to the data they need, when they need it. This means not only that the safety and lives of workers will no longer be at risk but that NUAR will underpin the Government’s priority to get the economy growing, expediting projects such as new roads, new houses and broadband rollout.
The Bill gives the people using data to improve our lives the certainty that they need. It maintains high standards for protecting people’s privacy, while seeking to maintain the EU’s adequacy decisions for the UK. The Bill is a hugely important piece of legislation and I thank noble Lords across the House for their involvement in and support for the Bill so far. I look forward to hearing their views today and throughout the rest of the Bill’s passage. I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I start with apologies from my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who cannot be with us due to illness. We wish her a speedy recovery in time for Christmas. I have therefore been drafted in temporarily to open for the Opposition, shunting my noble friend Lord Bassam to close for us at the end of the debate. As a result, what your Lordships will now get with this speech is based partly on his early drafts and partly on my own thoughts on this debate—two for the price of one. I reassure your Lordships that, while I am flattered to be in the super-sub role, I look forward to returning to the Back Benches for the remaining stages in the new year.
I remind the House of my technology interests, particularly in chairing the boards of CENTURY Tech and EDUCATE Ventures Research—both companies working with AI in education. I very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to his place and look forward to his maiden speech.
Just over six years ago, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill. I said then that:
“We need to power the economy and innovation with data while protecting the rights of the individual and of wider society from exploitation by those who hold our data”.
For me, that remains the vision. We are grateful to the Minister for setting out in his speech his vision, but it feels to me that one of the Bill’s failings is the weakening of the protection from exploitation that would follow if it passes in its current form. In that 2017 Second Reading speech, I also said that:
“No consent regime can anticipate future use or the generation of intelligent products by aggregating my data with that of others. The new reality is that consent in its current form is dead”.—[Official Report, 10/10/17; cols. 183-5.]
Now that we have moved squarely into the age of AI, I welcome the opportunity to update GDPR to properly regulate data capture, storage and sharing in the public interest.
In the Online Safety Act, we strengthened Ofcom to regulate technology providers and their algorithmic impacts. In the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, we are strengthening the Competition and Markets Authority to better regulate these powerful acquisitive commercial interests. This Bill is the opportunity to strengthen the Information Commissioner to better regulate the use of data in AI and some of the other potential impacts discussed at the recent AI summit.
This is where the Bill is most disappointing. As the Ada Lovelace Institute tells us in its excellent briefing, the Bill does not provide any new oversight of cutting-edge AI developments, such as biometric technologies or foundation models, despite well-documented gaps in existing legal frameworks. Will the Minister be coming forward with anything in Committee to address these gaps?
While we welcome the change from an Information Commissioner to a broader information commission, the Bill further weakens the already limited legal safeguards that currently exist to protect individuals from AI systems that make automated decisions about them in ways that could lead to discrimination or disadvantage—another lost opportunity.
I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future of Work, and will be seeking to amend the Bill in respect of automated decision-making in the workplace. The rollout of ChatGPT-4 now makes it much easier for employers to quickly and easily develop algorithmic tools to manage staff, from hiring through to firing. We may also want to provide safeguards over public sector use of automated decision-making tools. The latter is of particular concern when reading the legal opinion of Stephen Cragg KC on the Bill. He says that:
“A list of ‘legitimate interests’ (mostly concerning law and order, safeguarding and national security) has been elevated to a position where the fundamental rights of data subjects (including children) can effectively be ignored where the processing of personal data is concerned … The Secretary of State can add to this list without the need for primary legislation, bypassing important Parliamentary controls”.
Furthermore, on lost opportunities, the Bill does not empower regulators with the tools or capabilities that they need to implement the Government’s plans for AI regulation or the commitments made at the AI Safety Summit. In this, I personally support the introduction of a duty on all public regulators to have regard to the principles on AI that were published in the Government’s White Paper. Would the Minister be willing to work with me on that?
There are other lost opportunities. I have argued elsewhere that data trusts are an opportunity to build public trust in their data being used to both develop better technology and generate revenue back to the taxpayer. I remain interested in whether personal data could be defined as an asset that can be bequeathed in one’s estate to avoid what we discussed in our debates on what is now the Online Safety Act, where bereaved families have had a terrible experience trying to access the content their children saw online that contributed to their deaths—and not just from suicide.
This takes me neatly on to broken promises and lessons not learned. I am confident that, whether the Government like it or not, the House will use this Bill to keep the promises made to families by the Secretary of State in respect of coroners being able to access data from technology providers in the full set of scenarios that we discussed, not just self-harm and suicide. It is also vital that the Bill does nothing to contradict or otherwise undermine the steps that this country has taken to keep children safe in the digital world. I am sure we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on this subject, but let me say at this stage that we support her and, on these Benches, we are fully committed to the age-appropriate design code. The Minister must surely know that in this House, you take on the noble Baroness on these issues at your peril.
I am also confident that we will use this Bill to deliver an effective regime on data access for researchers. During the final parliamentary stages of the Online Safety Bill, the responsible Ministers, Paul Scully MP and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recognised the importance of going further on data access and committed in both Houses to exploring this issue and reporting back on the scope to implement it through other legislation, such as this Bill. We must do that.
The Bill has lost opportunities and broken promises, but in other areas it is also failing. The Bill is too long—probably like my speech. I know that one should not rush to judgment, but the more I read the Bill and various interpretations of its impact, the more I worry about it. That has not been helped by the tabling of some 260 government amendments, amounting to around 150 pages of text, on Report in another place—that is, after the Bill had already undergone its line-by-line scrutiny by MPs. Businesses need to be able to understand this new regime. If they also have any data relationship with the EU, they potentially also need to understand how this regime interacts with the EU’s GDPR. On that, will the Minister agree to share quickly with your Lordships’ House his assessment of whether the Bill meets the adequacy requirements of the EU? We hear noises to the contrary from the Commission, and it is vital that we have the chance to assess this major risk.
After the last-minute changes in another place, the Bill increasingly seems designed to meet the Government’s own interests: first, through changes to rules on direct marketing during elections, but also by giving Ministers extensive access to the bank account data of benefit claimants and pensioners without spelling out the precise limitations or protections that go alongside those powers. I note the comments of the Information Commissioner himself in his updated briefing on the Bill:
“While I agree that the measure is a legitimate aim for government, given the level of fraud and overpayment cited, I have not yet seen sufficient evidence that the measure is proportionate ... I am therefore unable, at this point, to provide my assurance to Parliament that this is a proportionate approach”.
In starting the scrutiny of these provisions, it would be useful if the Minister could confirm in which other countries such provisions already exist. What consultation have they been subject to? Does HMRC already have these powers? If not, why go after benefit fraud but not tax fraud?
Given the lack of detailed scrutiny this can ever have in the other place, I of course assume the Government will respect whatever is the will of this House when we have debated these measures.
As we did during last week’s debate on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, I will now briefly outline a number of other areas where we will be seeking changes or greater clarity from the Government. We need to see a clear definition of high-risk processing in the Bill. While the Government might not like subject access requests after recent experience of them, they have not made a convincing case for significantly weakening data-subject rights. Although we support the idea of smart data initiatives such as extending the successful open banking framework to other industries, we need more information on how Ministers envisage this happening in practice. We need to ensure the Government’s proposals with regards to nuisance calls are workable and that telecommunications companies are clear about their responsibilities. With parts of GDPR, particularly those on the use of cookies, having caused so much public frustration, the Bill needs to ensure appropriate consultation on and scrutiny of future changes in this area. We must take the public with us.
So a new data protection Bill is needed, but perhaps not this one. We need greater flexibility to move with a rapidly changing technological landscape while ensuring the retention of appropriate safeguards and protections for individuals and their data. Data is key to future economic growth, and that is why it will be a core component of our industrial strategy. However, data is not just for growth. There will be a clear benefit in making data work for the wider social good and the empowerment of working people. There is also, as we have so often discussed during Oral Questions, huge potential for data to revitalise the public services, which are, after 13 years of this Government, on their knees.
This Bill seems to me to have been drafted before the thinking that went into the AI summit. It is already out of date, given its very slow progress through Parliament. There is plenty in the Bill that we can work with. We are all agreed there are enormous opportunities for the economy, our public services and our people. We should do everything we can to take these opportunities forward. I know the Minister is genuinely interested in collaborating with colleagues to that end. We stand ready to help the Government make the improvements that are needed, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is a long way to go if this legislation is to have public confidence and if our data protection regime is to work not just for the tech monopolies but for small businesses, consumers, workers and democracy too. We must end the confusion, empower the regulators and in turn empower Parliament to better scrutinise the tsunami of digital secondary legislation coming at us. There is much to do.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, even less than the noble Lord, Lord Knight, can I claim that this is my primary brief, so I want to make a short Back-Bench contribution to the subject, bringing some of my experience from former interests. I declare that I do not have any current financial interests but, if you look at my register entry, you will see that I spent a long time working for a company that was so much at the heart of the data protection debate that the 2016 EU regulation was nicknamed in Brussels “Lex Facebook”.
I do not want speak to the details of the provisions in front of us, and I look forward to hearing some of the arguments, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with whom I worked closely in the context of the Online Safety Act; I think she has some really important points to raise on what is in the Bill. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
The one thing I really want to spend a short amount of time on today is to flag a concern that I will not attempt to resolve: I would rather leave that to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others who will to be in Committee on the Bill. It is the concern around EU adequacy that I think should really be front and centre of our discussions when we consider this legislation. As I say, I do not intend to be active in later stages of the Bill—unless we fix the NHS between now and Committee, which would be a blessing for more reasons other than enabling me to take part in consideration of data protection legislation.
The flag that I am raising will be in something of a Cassandra-like tone. It is something I think is very likely to happen, but I am not expecting the Government to believe me and necessarily change direction. I have been intimately involved in these discussions over many years. If people have been following this, they will know that the EU had an adequacy agreement with the United States that had full political support within the EU institutions but has successively been struck down in a series of actions in the European Court of Justice. All the politicians wanted data to flow freely between the United States and the EU, but the law has not allowed that to happen. So the alarm bells ring. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, said he thought the Commission had doubts; that worries me even more. Even where the Commission is saying that it is comfortable with the adequacy of the UK regime, the alarm bells still ring for me because it said that repeatedly over the US data transfers and it turned out not to be the case.
There are three main areas where we can predict that the risk will occur. The first is where the core legal regime for data protection in the UK is deemed to be too weak to protect the interests of EU data subjects. The second is where there are aspects of the UK legal regime for security-related surveillance that are seen as creating unacceptable risk if EU data is in the hands of UK entities. The third is where redress mechanisms for EU data subjects, especially in relation to surveillance, are regarded as inaccessible or ineffective. These are all the areas that have been tested thoroughly in the context of the United States, and any or all of them may end up being tested also in the European Court of Justice for the United Kingdom if EU citizens complain in future about the processing of their data in the UK. The first angle will test the complete package of data protection set out in the many pages of this Bill. The second will consider our surveillance practices, including new developments such as the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill, which is before us right now. Any future changes to UK surveillance law, for example, following a terrorist outrage, may end up being tested and queried before the European Court of Justice.
Regarding redress, our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights is critical. Any suggestion that we start to ignore ECHR judgments, even in another area such as immigration policy, may be used to argue that EU citizens cannot rely on their Article 8 right to privacy in the United Kingdom. My advice to the Minister is to properly test all these angles internally on the assumption that we will be arguing them out at the European Court of Justice in the future. This is difficult. I know that the UK authorities, like the US authorities, will not be comfortable sharing details of their surveillance regime in a European court, but that is what will be required to prove we are adequately safe if a complaint in respect of UK surveillance is made. It is really important that we hear the strongest lines of attack, and that we invite privacy activists, in particular, to offer them: the Government should invite in the kinds of people who will be taking those court cases so they can hear their strongest lines of attack now and test all our legislation against them. We certainly should not rely on assurances from the European Commission; I hope the Minister can give us more than that in his response. The key dynamic from the transatlantic experience is that this is between EU privacy activists and the European courts, rather than being something the Commission entirely controls.
The consequences of the loss of EU adequacy, or even significant uncertainty that this is on the horizon, will be that UK businesses that work on a cross-channel basis will be advised by their lawyers to move their data processing capability into the EU. They would feel confident serving the UK from the EU, but not the other way around. This is precisely what has happened in the context of transatlantic data flows and will hardly make Britain the best place in the world to do e-business. I hope the Minister will confirm that it would be a very undesirable outcome, to use parliamentary language, and that we will be taking one step forward but two steps back if that is a consequence of this Bill.
Having planted that flag, it is regrettable I will be unable to help noble Lords as they try and thread the needle of getting the legislation right. I have every sympathy for those seeking to do that; I have less and less sympathy for the Government, because they chose to bring the legislation forward, unlike other important legislation like the mental capacity Bill, which was left off the agenda, as I keep reminding the Government. I hope noble Lords will keep this Cassandra-like warning current in their minds as they consider the Bill; I do not want to be standing here in five years’ time saying, “I told you so” and I do not think noble Lords want me here in five years’ time saying that either. With that in your Lordships’ ears, I hope the Minister and Members who are scrutinising the Bill can really dig into this adequacy point and not hold back, because it is a genuine, serious threat to all kinds of businesses in the United Kingdom, not just digital ones.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests set out in full on the register, including as an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University, chair of the Digital Futures for Children centre at the LSE and chair of the 5Rights Foundation. I add my welcome to my noble friend Lord de Clifford, who I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday, and I look forward to his maiden speech.
I start by quoting Marcus Fysh MP who said in the other place:
“this is such a serious moment in our history as a species. The way that data is handled is now fundamental to basic human rights … I say to those in the other place as well as to those on the Front Benches that … we should think about it incredibly hard. It might seem an esoteric and arcane matter, but it is not. People might not currently be interested in the ins and out of how AI and data work, but in future you can bet your bottom dollar that AI and data will be interested in them. I urge the Government to work with us to get this right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 878.]
He was not the only one on Report in the other place who was concerned about some of the provisions in the Bill, who bemoaned the lack of scrutiny and urged the Government to think again. Nor was he the only one who reluctantly asked noble Lords to send the Bill back to the other place in better shape.
I associate myself with the broader points made by both noble Lords who have already spoken—I do not think I disagreed with a word that they said—but my own comments will primarily focus on the privacy of children, the case for data communities, access for researchers and, indeed, the promises made to bereaved parents and then broken.
During the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018, your Lordships’ House, with cross-party support, introduced the age appropriate design code, a stand-alone data protection regime for the under-18s. The AADC’s privacy by design approach ushered in a wave of design change to benefit children: TikTok and Instagram disabled direct messaging from unknown adults to children; YouTube turned off auto-play; Google turned on safe search on by default for children; 18-plus apps were taken out of the Play Store; TikTok stopped notifications through the night; and Roblox stopped tracking and targeting children for advertising. These were just a handful of hundreds of changes to products and services likely to be accessed by children. Many of these changes have been rolled out globally, meaning that while other jurisdictions cannot police the code, children in those places benefit from it. As the previous Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, acknowledged, it contributes to the UK’s reputation for digital regulation and is now being copied around the globe.
I set this out at length because the AADC not only drove design change, it also established the crucial link between privacy and safety. This is why it is hugely concerning that children have not been explicitly protected from changes that lessen user data protections in the Bill. I have given Ministers notice that I will seek to enshrine the principle that children have the right to a higher bar of data protection by design and default; to define children’s data as sensitive personal data in the Bill; and exclude children from proposals that risk eroding the impact of the AADC, notably in risk assessments, automated processing, onward processing, direct marketing and the extended research powers of commercial companies.
Minister Paul Scully said at Second Reading in the other place:
“We are committed to protecting children and young people online … organisations will still have to abide by our Age-appropriate design code”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/23; col. 101.]
I take it from those words that any perception of, or diminution to, children’s data rights is inadvertent, and it remains the Government’s policy not to weaken the AADC as currently configured in the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention to protect the AADC and that he is willing to work with me to ensure that it is that the outcome? I will also seek a requirement for the ICO to create a statutory children’s code in relation to AI. The ubiquitous deployment of AI technology to recommend and curate is nothing new, but the rapid advances in generative AI capabilities marks a new stage in its evolution. In the hundreds of pages of the ICO’s non-binding Guidance on AI and Data Protection, its AI and Data Protection Risk Toolkit and its advice to developers on generative AI, there is but one mention of the word “child”—in a case study about child benefit.
The argument made was that children are covered by the AADC, which underlines again just how consequential it is. However, since adults are covered by data law but it is considered necessary to have specific AI guidance, the one in three users that is under 18 deserves the same consideration. I am not at liberty to say today, but later this week—perhaps as early as tomorrow—information will emerge that underlines the urgent need for specific consideration of children’s safety in relation to generative models. I hope that the Minister will agree that an AI code for kids is an imperative rather than nice to have.
Similarly, we must deliver data privacy to children in education settings. Given the extraordinary rate at which highly personal data seeps out of schools into the commercial world, including to gambling companies and advertisers, coupled with the scale of tech adoption in schools, it is untenable to continue to see tech inside school as a problem for schools and tech outside school as a problem for regulators. The spectre of a nursery teacher having enough time and knowledge to integrate the data protection terms of a singing app, or the school ICT lead having to tackle global companies such as Google and Microsoft to set the terms for their students’ privacy, is frankly ridiculous, but that is the current reality. Many school leaders feel abandoned by the Government’s insistence that they should be responsible for data protection when both the AADC and Online Safety Act have been introduced but they benefit from neither. It should be the role of the ICO to set data standards for edtech and to ensure that providers are held to account if they fall short. As it stands, a child enjoys more protection on the bus to school than in the classroom.
Finally on issues relating to children, I want to raise a technical issue around the production of AI-generated child sexual abuse material. I recognise the Government’s exemplary record on tackling CSAM but, unfortunately, innovation does not stop. While AI-generated child sexual abuse content is firmly in scope of UK law, it appears that the models or plug-ins trained on generating CSAM or trained to generate CSAM are not. At least four laws, the earliest from 1978, are routinely used to bring criminal action against CSAM and perpetrators of it, so I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to explore the issue with the police unit that has raised it with me and make an explicit commitment to close any gaps identified.
We are at an inflection point, and however esoteric and arcane the issues around data appear to be, to downgrade a child’s privacy even by a small degree has huge implications for their safety, identity and selfhood. If the Government fail to protect and future-proof children’s privacy, they will be simply giving with one hand in the OSA and taking away with the other in this Bill.
Conscious that I have had much to say about children, I will briefly put on the record issues that we can debate at greater length in Committee. While data law largely rests on the assumption of a relationship between an individual and a service, we have seen over a couple of decades that power lies in having access to large datasets. The Bill offers a wonderful opportunity to put that data power in the hands of new entrants to the market, be they businesses or communities, by allowing the sharing of individual data rights and being able to assign data rights to third parties for agreed purposes. I have been inspired by approaches coming out of academia and the third sector which have supported the drafting of amendments to find a route that would enable the sharing of data rights.
Similarly, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we must find a route to access commercial data sets for public interest research. I was concerned that in the other place when former Secretary of State Jeremy Wright queried why a much-touted research access had not materialised in the Bill, the Minister appeared to suggest that it was covered. The current drafting embeds the asymmetries of power by allowing companies to access user data, including for marketing and creating new products, but does not extend access for public interest research into the vast databases held by those same companies. There is a feeling of urgency emerging as our academic institutions see their European counter- parts gain access to commercial data because of the DSA. There is an increased need for independent research to support our new regulatory regimes such as the Online Safety Act. This is an easy win for the Government and I hope that they grasp it.
Finally, I noted very carefully the words of the Minister when he said, in relation to a coroner’s access to data, that the Secretary of State had made an offer to fill the gap. This is a gap that the Government themselves created. During the passage of the Online Safety Act we agreed to create a humane route to access data when a coroner had reason to suspect that a regulated company might have information relevant to the death of a child. The Government have reneged by narrowing the scope to those children taking their own life. Expert legal advice says that there are multiple scenarios under which the Government’s narrowing scope creates a gaping hole in provision for families of murdered children and has introduced uncertainty and delay in cases where it may not be clear how a child died at the outset.
I must ask the Minister what the Government are trying to achieve here and who they are trying to please. Given the numbers, narrowing scope is unnecessary, disproportionate and egregiously inhumane. This is about parents of murdered children. The Government lack compassion. They have created legal uncertainty and betrayed and re-traumatised a vulnerable group to whom they made promises. As we go through this Bill and the competition Bill, the Minister will at some points wish the House to accept assurances from the Dispatch Box. The Government cannot assure the House until the assurances that they gave to bereaved parents have been fulfilled.
I will stop there, but I urge the Minister to respond to the issues that I have raised rather than leave them for another day. The Bill must uphold our commitment to the privacy and safety of children. It could create an ecosystem of innovative data-led businesses and keep our universities at the forefront of tech development and innovation. It simply must fulfil our promise to families who this Christmas and every other Christmas will be missing a child without ever knowing the full circumstances surrounding that child’s death. That is the inhumanity that we in this House promised to stop—and stop it we must.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and look forward to his maiden speech. We on these Benches appreciate that there is a need for updated data protection legislation in order to keep up with the many technological advances that are taking place and, wherever possible, to simplify the processes for data processing. From this perspective, we welcome the Government’s ambition to remove unnecessary red tape and to support British businesses and our economy. However, as ever, these priorities need to be balanced alongside appropriate security of new legislation and we must ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in the Bill to protect human rights that are fundamental to our democracy.
I have been struck by just how many briefing papers I have received from the most extraordinarily diverse group of organisations. One thing that many of them highlight is the fact that, for many businesses that operate between the UK and the EU, this new legislation is no guarantee of simplified data processing. In fact, with the increased divergence between UK and EU data protection that this Bill will bring, it is worrying that we may struggle to work more closely with the EU. Working to two different standards and trying to marry two frameworks that are far less aligned does not sound like less red tape, nor does it sound particularly pro-business.
However, there is an important point in respect of the stated aims of the Bill. There are serious concerns from businesses, organisations and civil society groups across a wide range of sectors about the weakening of data protection law under this new Bill. Clause 1(2) tightens the definition of personal data, meaning that only data that could allow a processor or another party to identify the individual by
“reasonable means at the time of processing”
would count as personal data and be protected by law. As many others have drawn attention to, the use of the phrase “reasonable means” is imprecise and troubling. This will need to be more clearly defined as a minimum or the clause revoked altogether. “Reasonable means” would include the cost of identifying the individual, as well as the time, effort and other factors besides. This would allow organisations to assess whether they have the resources to identify an individual, which would be an extremely subjective test, to say the least, and puts the power firmly in the hands of data processors when it comes to defining what is or is not personal data.
As an example, GeneWatch has highlighted that, under the new Bill, some genetic information will no longer be classed as “personal data” and safeguarded as such, allowing the police and security services to access huge amounts of the public’s genetic information without needing to go to court or to justify the requirement for this data. Crucially, data protection legislation should define what is or is not personal data by the type of data it is, not by how easy or feasible it may be for an organisation or third party to use that data to identify an individual at every given point. Personal data rights must continue to be protected in this country and in our law.
The new Bill also provides vastly expanded powers to the police and security services via Clause 19 and Clauses 28 to 30. As I read them, on the surface they do not look as though they provide proper accountability; perhaps the Minister can reassure me on that. Clause 19 would review the requirement in the Data Protection Act 2018 for the police to justify why they have accessed an individual’s personal data. Clauses 28 to 30 allow the Home Secretary to authorise the police so that they do not need to comply with certain data protection laws via a national security certificate; this would give the police immunity even if they commit what would otherwise be a crime.
Taken together, these two measures give an extraordinary amount of unchecked power to the police and security services. With the amended approach to national security certificates, the police could not be challenged before the courts for how and why they had accessed data, so there would be no way to review what the Government are doing here or ensure that abuses of these powers do not take place. Can the Minister explain how such measures align with the democratic values on which this country and government are based?
The National AIDS Trust has been involved in cases where people living with HIV have had their HIV status shared, without their consent, by police officers, with a huge impact on the life of the individual in question. This is a serious breach of current data protection law. We must ensure that police officers are still required to justify why they have accessed specific personal data, as this evidence is vital in cases of police misconduct.
I am aware that there are many other concerns about this Bill. Noble Lords have touched on some of them, not least around online pornography, gambling and other matters that I hope other noble Lords will pick up on. In particular, there are doubts around the Bill’s compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We in this House must do our duty to properly scrutinise and, wherever necessary, amend this Bill to ensure that we have the proper legislation in place to protect and safeguard our data. I look forward to working with Ministers and Members of this House when we move into Committee on this Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the previous speakers, including my noble friend the Minister, the other Front-Benchers and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
I start by thanking the House of Lords Library for its briefing—it was excellent, as usual—and the number of organisations that wrote to noble Lords so that we could understand and drill down into some of the difficulties and trade-offs we are going to have to look at. As with most legislation, we want to get the balance right between, for example, a wonderful environment for commerce and the right to privacy and security. I think that we in this House will be able to tease out some of those issues and, I hope, get a more appropriate balance.
I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. They include the fact that I am an unpaid adviser to the Startup Coalition and have worked with a number of think tanks that have written about tech and privacy issues in the past.
When I look at the Bill at this stage, I think that there are bits to be welcomed, bits that need to be clarified and bits that raise concern. I want to touch on a few of them before drilling down—I will not drill down into all of them, because I am sure that noble Lords have spoken or will speak on them, and we will have much opportunity for further debate.
I welcome Clause 129, which requires social media companies to retain information linked to a child suicide. However, I understand and share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this seems to be the breaking of a promise. The fact is that this was supposed to be about much more data and harms to children and how we can protect our children. In some ways, we must remember the analogy about online spaces: when we were younger, before the online age, our parents were always concerned about us when we went beyond the garden gate; nowadays, we must look at the internet and the computers on our mobile devices as that garden gate. When children leave that virtual garden gate and go through into the online world, we must ask whether they are safe, in the same way that my parents worried about us when, as children, we went through our garden gate to go out and play with others.
Clauses 138 to 141, on a national underground asset register, are obviously very sensible; that proposal is probably long overdue. I have questions about the open electoral register, in particular the impact on the direct marketing industry. Once again, we want to get the balance right between commerce and ease of doing business, as my noble friend the Minister said, and the right to privacy.
I have concerns about Clauses 147 and 148 on abolishing the offices of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. I understand that the responsibilities will be transferred, but, in thinking about the legislation that we have been talking about in this place—such as the Online Safety Act—I wonder about the amount of powers that we are giving to these regulators and whether they will have the bandwidth for them. Is there really a good reason for abolishing these two commissioners?
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, about access to bank accounts. Surely people should have the right to know why their bank account has been accessed and have some protection so that not just anyone can access it. I know that it is not just anyone but there are concerns about this, and people have to be clearer on the rules.
I have talked to the direct marketing industry. It sees the open electoral register as a valuable resource for businesses in understanding and targeting customers. However, it tells me that a recent court case between Experian and the ICO has introduced some confusion on the use of the register for business purposes. It is concerned that the Information Commissioner’s Office’s interpretation, requiring notification to every individual for every issue, presents challenges that could cost the industry millions and make the open electoral register unusable for it, perhaps pushing businesses to rely more on large tech companies. However, I understand that, at the same time, this may well be an issue where there are clear concerns about privacy.
Where there is no harm, I would like to understand the Government’s thinking on some of that—whether it is going too far or whether some clarification is needed in this area. Companies say they will be unable to target prospective customers; some of us may like that, but we should also remember that there is Clause 116 on unlawful direct marketing. The concern for many of us is that while it is junk if we do not want it, sometimes we do respond to someone’s direct marketing. I wonder how we get that balance right; I hope we can tease some of that out. If the Government agree with the interpretation and restrictions on the direct marketing industry, I wonder whether they can explain some of the reasons behind it. There may very well be good reasons.
I also want to look at transparency and data usage, not just for AI but more generally. It is obvious in the Government’s own AI White Paper that we want a pro-innovation approach to regulation, but we are also calling for transparency at a number of levels: of datasets and of algorithms. To be honest, even if we are given that transparency, do we have the ability to understand those algorithms and datasets? We still need that transparency. I am concerned about undermining the principle, and particularly weakening subject access requests.
I am also interested in companies that, say, have used your data but have refused an application and then tell you that they do not have to tell you why they refused that application. Perhaps this is too much of a burden to companies, but I wonder whether we have a right to know which data was being accessed when that decision was made. I will give a personal example; about a year ago, I applied for an account with a very clever online bank and was rejected. It told me I would have a decision within 48 hours; I did not. Two weeks later, I got a message on the app that said I had been rejected and that under the law it did not have to tell me why. I wrote to it and said, “Okay, you don’t have to tell me why, but could you delete all the data you have on me—what I put in?”. It said, “Oh, we don’t have to delete it until a certain time”. If we really own that data, I wonder whether there should be more of an expectation on companies to explain what data and information they have to make those decisions, which can be life changing for many people. We have heard all sorts of stories about access to bank accounts and concerns about digital exclusion.
We really have to think about how much access individuals can have to the data that is used to refuse them, but also the data when they leave a service or stop being a user. I also want to make sure that there is accountability. I want to know, in Clause 12, about “reasonable and proportionate search”; what does that mean, particularly when it is processed by law enforcement and intelligence services? I think we need further clarification on some of this for our assurance.
We also have to recognise that, if we look at the online environment of the last 10, 15 or 20 years, at first we were very happy to give our data away to social media companies because we thought we were getting a free service, connecting with friends across the world et cetera. Only later did we realise that the companies were using this data and monetising it for commercial purposes. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but we have to ask whose data it is. Is it my data? Does the company own it? For those companies that think they own it, why do they think that? We need some more accountability, to make sure that we understand which data we own and which we give away. Once again, the same thing might happen—you might stop being a user or customer of a service, or you might be rejected, but it is not there.
As an academic, I recognise the need for greater access to data, particularly for online research. I welcome some of the mechanisms in the Online Safety Act that we debated. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that the Bill sufficiently addresses the requirements and incentives for large data holders to hold data for academic research with all the appropriate safeguards in place? I wonder whether the Minister has looked at some of the proposals to allow this to happen more, perhaps with the information commission acting as an intermediary for datasets et cetera. Once again, I am concerned about giving even more power to the information commission and the bandwidth to do all this stuff, including all the powers we are giving.
On cookie consent, I understand the annoyance of cookies. I remember the debates about cookie consent when I was in the European Parliament, but at the time we supported it because we thought it was important for users to be told what was being done with their information. It has become annoying, just like those text messages when we go roaming; I supported that during the roaming debates in the European Parliament because I did not want users to say they were not warned about the cost of roaming. The problem is that they become annoying; people ignore them and tick things on terms and conditions without having read them because they are too long.
When it comes to some of the cookies, I like the idea about exemptions for prior consent—a certain opt-out where there is no real harm—but I wonder whether it could be extended, for example so that cookies to understand the performance of advertising and to help companies understand the effectiveness of advertisements are exempt from the consent requirements. I do not think this would fundamentally change the structure of the Bill, but I wonder whether we have the right balance here on harm, safety and the ability of companies to test the effectiveness of some of their direct marketing. Again, I am just interested in the Government’s thinking about the balance between privacy and commerce.
Like other noble Lords, I share concerns about the powers granted to the Secretary of State. I think they lack the necessary scrutiny and safeguards, and that there is a risk of undermining the operations of online content and service providers that rely on these technologies. We need to see some strengthening here and more assurances.
I have one or two other concerns. The Information Commissioner has powers to require people to attend interviews as part of an investigation; that seems rather Big Brother-ish to me, and I am not sure whether the Information Commissioner would want these abilities, but there might be good reasons. I just want to understand the Government’s thinking on this.
I know that on Report in the other place, both Dawn Butler MP and David Davis MP raised concerns about retaining the right to use non-digital verification systems. We all welcome verification systems, but the committee I sit on—the Communications and Digital Committee—recently wrote a report on digital exclusion. We are increasingly concerned about digital exclusion and people having a different level of service because they are digitally excluded. I wonder what additional assurances the Minister can give us on some of those issues. The Minister in the other place said:
“Individual choice is integral … digital verification services can be provided only at the request of the individual”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 913.]
I think that any further verification would be really important.
The last point I turn to is EU adequacy. Let me be quite clear: I do not believe in divergence for the sake of divergence, but at the same time I do not believe in convergence or harmonisation for the sake of convergence and harmonisation. We used to have these debates in the European Parliament all the time. There are those expressing concerns about EU data adequacy, and we have to split them into two groups—one is those people who really still wish we were members of the EU, but there are also those for whom this is irrelevant, and for whom this really is about the privacy and security of our users. If the EU is raising these issues in its agreements, we can thank it for doing that.
I obviously was involved in debates on the safe harbour and the privacy shield. As noble Lords have said, we thought we had the right answer; the Commission thought we had the answer, but it was challenged by courts. I think this will have to be challenged more. Are we diverging just for the sake of divergence, or is there a good reason to diverge here, particularly when concerns have already been raised about security and privacy?
I end by saying that I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I thank noble Lords for listening to me, and I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House on some of the issues I have raised.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill may contain some good elements in the search for a modernisation of data protection, but in overall terms it seems to tilt the balance of advantage to businesses and government authorities rather than to the individual. It has been marred in its passage by the profusion of late government amendments in the other place on Report, and an absence of scrutiny from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
There are a number of issues that I think need to be seriously reconsidered. I will focus today on four. I also commend the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on the issues that she raised, some of which I will also touch on.
First, as my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth and the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, said—I do love the noble Lord’s name; alliterative Peers are a wonderful thing—a number of proposals appear to put at risk the free flow of data from the UK to the EU. That has already been touched on. It could even undermine the UK’s data adequacy decision. There seems to be some disconnect between what the EU Commission and the EU Parliament have begun to enunciate as a view: that the new powers of the Secretary of State to meddle with the objective and impartial functioning of the new Information Commission could result in the withdrawal of the UK adequacy decision. There seems to be a disconnect between that and the assurances that Ministers have given so far in the other place. Losing that decision, or even seeming to have that decision at risk, would be pretty disastrous for UK business, our trade and our research collaborations. Can the Minister tell the House how he intends to avoid this in the review due next year? How does he square the concerns of the EU with the assurances given by his ministerial colleagues?
My second point is about the new measures introduced at the last minute in the other place—Clauses 128 and Schedule 11—requiring the banks to monitor continuously all accounts to find welfare recipients and snitch on them if they reach certain as yet unprescribed criteria. This is not just an abstruse issue; it involves a considerable number of people. Knowing the age of the average Peer, it probably involves pretty well everybody in this House, because, of course, it includes pension recipients, so this is of personal concern to all of us. This is legitimising mass surveillance by algorithm. This seems to me to be a major intrusion into the privacy of pretty well all individuals in the UK and, to some extent, an infringement on the confidential relationship that you ought to be able to expect between a bank and its customer.
Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks this Big Brother mechanism is necessary? Why can the problem of benefit fraud not be dealt with in a way that does not mean that all customers are subject to surveillance? What alternatives were considered by Government and rejected? What safeguards will go alongside this provision to prevent it from being typified as a heavy-handed Big Brother approach?
It is strange that pension claimants are included. A pension, in my view, is a right, not a benefit; it was paid for by hard work during one’s working life. The Minister said in another place that they intend to extend this sort of surveillance process to other data areas. Can the Minister tell us what other areas and when that extension might take place?
The third issue is AI safety, an issue that has already been raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government were quite bushy tailed about their recent AI Safety Summit and the commitment to see the UK as a world leader. I am afraid that every time I hear this phrase “a world leader” I have the urge to throw up in my handbag, so you will pardon me if I wrinkle my nose at that. The fact that we want to be somewhere in the front pack on AI safety and responsible and safe AI innovation is okay, but the Bill is a missed opportunity. I agree with my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth that the Bill should be the place where oversight challenges posed by a very fast-moving set of AI developments, such as in biometric technologies, needs to have been gripped.
I was a victim of a biometric technology development when I was chancellor of Cranfield University. It developed a process for detecting microscopic and invisible beads of sweat above your eyebrows if you were put under pressure, and it was to be used in cases of airport security and various other areas. They decided to put me under pressure by making me stand in the main square of the university and answer mental arithmetic questions over a loudspeaker. What they had not quite grasped is that I know I am rubbish at mental arithmetic, so it put me under no pressure whatever, because this was not going to be news to anybody. It therefore failed to detect microscopic sweat. I thought you might like the day to be raised by a humorous account in this pre-Christmas process.
The Bill is a real missed opportunity to grasp those AI developments and the safeguarding that needs to go with them. In fact, you could say that it erodes further the already inadequate legal safeguards that should protect individuals from discrimination or disadvantage by AI systems making automated decisions. We have heard about job hiring and loan applications; this is, “The computer says no”, but on speed. We in your Lordships’ House deplore late additions to Bills, although we have rather grown used to it in recent months, but if the summit’s assurances are not going to seem a bit hollow, it would be good to hear whether the Minister intends to introduce additional measures on AI safety in the Bill and, if not, in what other legislation and to what timescale.
The fourth issue I want to raise is that of the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, soon to be the Information Commission. I entirely approve of the structure of an information commission as opposed to a commissioner. We need a powerful and effective regulator. The ICO’s enforcement and prosecution record has not been sparkling, with low levels of enforcement notices, prosecutions and fines. If, when I was at the Environment Agency, I had had as low a level of those as the Information Commissioner has had, I would think I had gone to sleep somewhere along the line. Does the Minister acknowledge that improvements need to be made to the Bill to ensure that the new Information Commission has a clear statutory objective and is clearly independent and at arm’s length from government, not the sort of arm’s length that becomes very short in times of crisis, that its regulatory function at a judicial level can be effectively scrutinised, that it retains the office and surveillance camera commission rather than simply wiping them from the script, and that it is able to consider class action complaints brought by civil society organisations or the trade unions?
In my experience, all too often, Governments plural, not just the current Government, establish watchdogs, then act surprised when they bark, and go and buy a muzzle. If the public are to have trust in our digital economy, we need a robust independent watchdog with teeth that government responds to. The Bill will need a lot of work, and there are hours and hours of happy fun in front of us. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions and to those of other noble Lords. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
Lord de Clifford (CB) (Maiden Speech)
It is two months since I took my oath in this esteemed Chamber, and every day since I have been grateful to your Lordships for the unique opportunity that has been granted to me. Since that first day, I have been asked on many occasions by friends and colleagues, “How is it going?” My reply: “It is like being back at senior school”. I feel very junior, but that is a nice thing, and I feel quite young too.
Being a new Peer, at times I look around and feel overwhelmed by the wealth of knowledge and depth of experience that your Lordships express in the Chamber and outside. I have been made to feel most welcome and supported, especially today in this debate with your kind word of support, but also by the doorkeepers with their immense knowledge of the workings of the House, its history and keeping me on the right side of its traditions and customs.
I would also like to mention the Convenor of the Cross Benches’ office staff, who have encouraged and guided me to this point, and to the many other staff in the Palace who have made me feel so much part of this grand establishment. Finally, if you will indulge me, thank you to my wife and family, who are here today to support me.
Whenever you start a new opportunity, you always question where you can contribute. For me, it was today’s debate on data protection. It would appear that I do not have in-depth knowledge of this extraordinarily complex subject—but on reflection I do, given my experience over the past 30 years of small business. I started with farming businesses, where I was part of the accountancy team, and then I ran the business side of a small firm of rural chartered surveyors. For the past 15 years I have managed a large independent veterinary practice which provides care and services to pets, horses and a large range of farming businesses. I know how important it is that we understand that the data we hold and care for on behalf of our customers and clients is important.
It is five years since the original GDPR legislation was introduced. At that time, it caused a significant amount of anxiety within the small business and veterinary world. This was reflected in the number of individuals and businesses attending seminars on the GDPR, put on by the Veterinary Practice Management Association, an organisation of which I am proud to be the current president. It promotes management and leadership, which are also a passion of mine, in the veterinary sector. The revision of this Bill is extremely well timed and needed. SME businesses are comfortable with the processes they have in place today to comply with the current legislation, but in the fast-moving and changing IT world, the simplification and clarity in the rules with regard to the use of data on a legitimate basis which this Bill intends to clarify are welcome.
Nearly all small businesses, from sole traders to large owner-managed companies, are data controllers. All collect personal data of some form in sales databases, client and patient relationship software and accountancy packages. The ability of the business to keep control of this data is becoming harder, as it has never been easier to export substantial amounts of data from these systems for many different purposes. Therefore, there is an increased risk that personal data can be lost or stolen due to the ever-increasing threat of cyberattack. It is essential that this updated legislation takes into account where all data is stored and its many different formats and ensures that it is not unknowingly shared with other users.
As my research for this debate has shown me, this Bill is immensely complex, which I know is required—but I fear that its complexity will mean that it will not be fully complied with by a number of small to medium-sized businesses that do not have the resources or time to research and instigate any changes that may be required. Therefore, investment will be needed from government to publicise the changes in a simple and understandable way to SMEs. If the Minister will say how he intends to communicate these changes to the sector, that would be welcome.
With regard to the section on smart data, this has brought immense efficiencies and security for small businesses with the changes made by the banking sector. Extending it further would bring more efficiencies for the business community. A cautious approach is needed when extending the use of smart data to ensure that businesses sharing and receiving personal data are compliant with these complex regulations, so that open application program interfaces cannot be infiltrated or hacked.
Individual personal data has without doubt grown in value significantly over the past five years since the introduction of the original data protection legislation. The desire to exchange of data between businesses, scientific institutions and government will only improve efficiency, productivity and scientific breakthroughs, which is one of the goals of this legislation. The protection of the data and recognising its value is essential as we review the Bill. Potentially, as it currently stands, the Bill could favour large IT corporations, whose ability to collect, process and monetise data is well known, so we must ensure that the new up-to-date regulations do not require large amounts of resources to implement them, so that we can ensure a level playing field for all businesses so that they can benefit from the power of data analysis. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on the need to access EU data so that small businesses can continue to trade without too much hassle and burden. I look forward to learning more of the way of the House as I continue to contribute to this Bill as it moves to Committee stage.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord de Clifford and to congratulate him on an excellent and insightful maiden speech. I am pleased that he has chosen this important Bill for this occasion. Data protection is something of a minority sport and it is great to add another person to the select group in this Chamber.
Data protection is about finding the right balance between protecting individuals’ privacy and the bureaucracy and costs that go with it, for small businesses and others. My noble friend’s long experience in managing small and medium-sized businesses gives him great insight into how these regulations will impact the businesses that typically find it most difficult to deal with greater bureaucracy, as he so rightly pointed out. SMEs are often overlooked more generally, so having such an experienced voice to remind us of their importance during our deliberations will be a great asset to the House, and from a personal point of view it is a great pleasure to welcome a fellow finance professional to join us.
The noble Lord’s experience in the veterinary sector should also be of enormous value to the House. I hope that my noble friend Lord Trees will not mind having his monopolistic position in the field broken. It seems that the noble Lord has also been hiding another light under a bushel: I believe that he has also competed for Great Britain in equestrianism, so he is clearly a man of many talents. I tried to find a joke to do with horsing around, but I am afraid that inspiration completely deserted me. I—and, I am sure, all noble Lords—look forward to his future contributions, both on this Bill and more widely.
I turn now to the specifics of the Bill. As I mentioned, data protection is about finding the right balance between individual privacy and the costs, processes and rules that must be in place, alongside the ability to carry out essential criminal investigations and national security. I think it is generally agreed that the GDPR has its flaws, so an effort to look again at that balance is welcome. There is much in the Bill to like. However, there are a number of areas where the Bill may move the balance too far away from individual privacy, as a number of other noble Lords have already mentioned. In fact, there is not much that I have disagreed with in the speeches so far.
It is a long and very complex Bill; the fact that the excellent Library briefing alone runs to 70 pages says a lot. It will not be possible to raise all issues; noble Lords are probably grateful for that. I am going to concentrate on four areas where I can see significant risks, but the Minister should not take that as meaning that I disagree with other things that have been said so far; I agree with almost everything that has been raised.
First, a general concern raised a number of times, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, is that the Bill moves us significantly away from our existing data protection rules, which were based clearly on the EU regulations. We are currently benefiting from an EU data adequacy ruling which allows data to be transferred freely between the EU and the UK. This was a major concern at the time of the Brexit discussions. At that time, data adequacy was not a given. This ruling comes to an end in July 2025, but it can be ended sooner if the EU considers that our data protection rules have diverged too far.
The impact assessment for the Bill—another inch-thick document—says:
“Cross-border data transfers are a key facilitator of international trade, particularly for digitised services. Transfers underpin business transactions and financial flows. They also help streamline supply chain management and allow business to scale and trade globally”.
It is good that the impact assessment recognises that. The loss of data adequacy would therefore have significant negative impacts on trade and on the costs of doing business. Without it, alternative and more costly methods of transferring data would be required, such as standard contractual clauses. There are also implications for investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, pointed out. Large international financial services organisations would be much less likely to establish data processing activities in the UK if we were to lose data adequacy. Indeed, they may decide that it is worth moving their facilities away from here.
The impact assessment suggests surprisingly low costs that might arise: one-off costs of £190 million to £460 million, and annual lost trade of £210 million to £420 million. However, these are only the direct reduction in trade with the EU; as the impact assessment points out, they will likely be larger when taking into account interactions with onward supply chains.
The impact assessment does not judge the probability of losing the data adequacy status. I find that rather extraordinary, possibly even shocking, as it is so important. The New Economics Foundation and UCL conservatively estimate the cost of losing data adequacy at £1 billion to £1.6 billion; however you look at it, these are very large numbers.
What can the Minister tell us that could set our minds at rest? What discussions have taken place with the EU? What initial indications have been received? What changes have been made to the original draft Bill to take account of concerns raised by the EU around data adequacy? What is the Government’s assessment of this risk? The Bill has been on the blocks for a long time now. I have to assume that a responsible Government must have had discussions with the EU around data adequacy in relation to these proposals.
Secondly, as we have heard, Clause 129 would enable Ofcom to require social media companies to retain information in connection with an investigation by a coroner into the death of a child, where the child was suspected to have died by suicide. This is a welcome addition but, as we have heard, it does not go far enough. It does not include all situations where a death was potentially related to online activity; for example, online grooming. My noble friend Lady Kidron has, as always, covered this with much greater eloquence than I could. I suspect the Minister already knows that the Government have got this wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out, it would be a brave Minister who tried to hold the current line in the face of opposition from my noble friend. I welcome the words that the Minister said at the beginning of this debate—that he is willing to engage on this matter. I hope that engagement will be constructive.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces draconian rules that would enable the DWP to access welfare recipients’ personal data by requiring banks and building societies to conduct mass monitoring without any reasonable grounds for suspecting fraudulent activity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, this includes anyone receiving any kind of benefit, including low-risk benefits such as state pensions, so, as she has pointed out, most noble Lords will be subject to this potential intrusion into their privacy—although, fortunately, not me yet. The Government argue that this power is required to reduce levels of benefit fraud. My enthusiasm to tackle fraud is well known, but the Government already have powers to require information where they have grounds to suspect fraudulent behaviour. This new power, effectively enabling them to trawl any bank account with no grounds at all, is a step too far, and constitutes a worrying level of creep towards a surveillance society.
That brings me neatly on to my fourth concern, which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised earlier. The Bill will abolish the post of Biometric and Surveillance Camera Commissioner—currently it is one person—as well as the surveillance camera code. It was interesting that the Minister did not mention this in his opening speech. It is extremely important.
The Government argue that these functions are covered elsewhere or would be moved elsewhere—for example, to the ICO—but that does not seem to be the case. An independent report by the Centre for Research into Information, Surveillance and Privacy, commissioned by the outgoing commissioner, sets out a whole range of areas in which there will be serious gaps in the oversight of handling biometric data and, in particular, the use of surveillance cameras, including facial recognition.
The independent report concludes that none of the Government’s arguments that the functions are adequately covered elsewhere “bear robust scrutiny”. It notes in particular that the claim that the Information Commissioner’s Office will unproblematically take on many BSCC functions mistakes surveillance as a purely data protection matter and thereby limits
“recognition of potential surveillance-related harms”.
Given the ever-widening use of surveillance in this country, including live and retrospective facial recognition, and the myriad other methods of non-facial recognition being developed, such as gait recognition or, as I was reading about this morning, laser-based cardiac recognition—it can read your heartbeat through your clothing—alongside the ability to process and retain ever greater amounts of data and the emerging technology of AI, having clear rules on and oversight of biometrics and surveillance is more important than ever. We see how the misuse of surveillance can go—just look at China. Imagine, for example, if this technology, unfettered, had been available when homosexuality was illegal. Why do the Government want to remove the existing safeguards? With the advances in technology, surely these are more important than ever. We should be strengthening safeguards, not removing them.
The outgoing commissioner—if the Government get their way, the last surveillance camera commissioner —Professor Sampson, put it best:
“There is no question that AI-driven biometric surveillance can be intrusive, and that the line between what is private and public surveillance is becoming increasingly blurred. The technology is among us already and the speed of change is dizzying with powerful capabilities evolving and combining in novel and challenging ways … The planned loss of the surveillance camera code is a good example of what will be lost if nothing is done. It is the only legal instrument we have in this country that specifically governs public space surveillance. It is widely respected by the police, local authorities and the surveillance industry in general. It’s one of those things that would have to be invented it didn’t already exist, so it seems absolutely senseless to destroy it now, junking the years of hard work it took to get it established”.
These are just four of the areas of concern in the Bill. There are many more, as we have heard. In the other place, following the failure of the recommittal Motion after all the new amendments were dropped in at the last minute, David Davis MP said that the Commons had
“in effect delegated large parts of the work on this important Bill to the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 888.]
That is our job, and I believe that we do it well. I hope the Minister will engage constructively with the very genuine concerns that have been raised. We must get this Bill right. If we do not, we risk substantial damage to the economy, businesses, individuals’ privacy rights—especially children—and even, as far as the surveillance elements go, to our status as a free and open democratic society.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I have now reached the grand old age of 71, and it is a worrying fact that I think this puts me bang on the average age of those in your Lordships’ House. So, it is a huge relief to be able to welcome to this House the two Peers, such young Peers, who have preceded me. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, and I find myself in agreement with him, in that I have agreed with most of what has been said in this debate so far. I also echo his welcome to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who brings real front-line experience of the effects of what we do in this House on small and medium-sized enterprises. He is someone that I know noble Lords will want to hear from in the years to come—and in view of his age, we can look forward to very many of them.
I declare my interest as chairman of the advisory panel of Thales, a digital company, and a member of the Post Office Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. I have learned in relation to the Post Office scandal that the complexity of computers is such that nobody really fully understands exactly what programs will do, so it is absurd that there is still in law a presumption that computers will operate as they are intended to. I hope that noble Lords will be able to turn their minds to changing that in the relatively near future.
I can be brief, because I was intending to raise issues relating to privacy, cookies and information which have already been so well canvassed by my noble friend Lord Kamall. Currently, we have to consent to cookies and terms and conditions, but we do not read them, we do not understand them, we do not know their effect—we do not have time. We will do anything for convenience, so the consent that we give is neither informed nor freely given. My noble friend Lord Kamall said what I wanted to say about an open electoral register. The thought of sending paper letters to everyone to inform them about the use of their data seems disproportionate and I, too, would like to know what on earth the ICO is thinking of in demanding such notification to everybody in the Experian case. I also adopt his questions about exemptions from getting consent to cookies when they are purely functional and non-intrusive. But there is no need for me to say it again, so I will not.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I pay tribute to his maiden speech and thank him for his insightful and valuable contribution to this debate. I also look forward to many future occasions on which he will contribute to the work of this House.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has said, we on these Benches recognise that high-quality data is crucial to creating and sustaining a healthy and efficient society. However, it is vital to get the balance right between ownership, access, control, and legitimate use of that data. Human flourishing should be at the front of regulating how data is used and reused. As we said in our written response to the Government’s 2020 data consultation:
“Fundamentally, the church welcomes any technology that augments human dignity and worth, while staunchly resisting any application of data that undermines that dignity. Questions of efficiency and cost-effectiveness are subsidiary to questions about how the types and uses of data will promote human flourishing in society and best practice in public bodies”.
It seems that the real test of this legislation is how it will truly promote good democracy and the extent to which it will protect the safety and enhance the security of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope the House will permit me a brief seasonal reference in pointing out that it was, in fact, a comprehensive data collection exercise by Quirinius, motivated entirely by greed and an abuse of power, that first resulted in the Holy Family travelling to Bethlehem. It also meant that they would need to flee very quickly indeed when the Christ child’s identity and location came to the attention of an insecure leader with unregulated power who also had exclusive access to the data, albeit in a very ancient form.
We acknowledge that current provision for data regulation is also outdated and in urgent need of reform. We support the Government’s intention to reform the Information Commissioner’s Office while preserving its independent footing, and the introduction of an information commission. But it is interesting to compare the Bill before us today with the concerns we expressed in 2020. First, our goal then was
“to flag some of the more significant risks we foresee in using data without adequate reflection on the pitfalls and harms that hasty and ill-considered data use gives rise to”.
It is sobering, therefore, that the Bill arrives in this House substantially amended in ways the other place has had insufficient time to scrutinise. The Online Safety Act perhaps offers a valuable and recent template for how this House might examine and improve this important Bill.
Secondly, we said we acknowledged the benefits of data but also the importance of gaining and retaining public trust. Therefore, it is worrying that, with some of the measures in the Bill, the Government seem to be reducing the levers and mechanisms that public trust depends upon. The Public Law Project’s assessment is that:
“While the Bill does not outright remove any of the current protections in data protection law, it weakens many of them to the extent that they will struggle to achieve their original purposes”.
We share the concerns of many civil society groups that the Bill will reduce transparency by weakening the scope of subject access requests, although I welcome the concern to mitigate plainly vexatious complaints. In June, the chief executive of the Data Protection Officer Centre said:
“Whilst countries across the globe are implementing ever-more robust data protection legislation, the UK seems intent on going in the opposite direction and lowering standards”.
What reassurance can the Minister give the House that the Bill will retain public trust and will not diverge even from current adequacy agreements?
Thirdly, we emphasised the Nolan principles as an aid to the public use of data. On 6 December 2023, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place published a report that noted that the DWP is piloting the use of machine-learning algorithms to identify potentially fraudulent claims. We are all in favour of proportional and effective measures to counter fraud, but Big Brother Watch argues that it is
“wholly inappropriate for the UK Government to order private banks, building societies and other financial services to conduct mass, algorithmic, suspicionless surveillance and reporting of their account holders on behalf of the state”.
Will the Minister explain how the state demanding data without cause—including, as a number of Members pointed out, data on the bank accounts of recipients of the state pension that it itself says it has no intention of using—complies with the Nolan principles of openness and accountability? Is this not at risk of being an overreach of government into people’s private lives?
His Majesty’s Government made commitments at the recent AI Safety Summit to make the UK a world leader in safe and responsible AI innovation, so would we not expect that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill would provide oversight of biometric technologies and general purpose artificial intelligence? My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford regrets that he is unable to participate in the debate today, but he will again lead for us as we scrutinise the Bill more thoroughly, including its gaps in protecting children’s data and in the regulation of data use by AI foundation or frontier models.
Regarding the latter, an important failure to interlock regulation persists. As the BBC reported over the weekend, assurances given in this House during the passage of the Online Safety Act are being threatened. The draft amendment grants access to data only where children have taken their own lives. This is not what the Government promised on the record in either the Commons or the Lords, and we will continue to press for a proper resolution. Surely we cannot simply rely on other holders of important data to disclose information that is important in order to protect children’s well-being.
I will comment briefly on death registration. The ability to move from a paper to an electronic register is commended. However, the UK Commission on Bereavement, chaired by my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, has recommended more that could be done to reduce the administrative burden on bereaved people. The Tell Us Once system is designed so that someone reporting a death need do so only once, and the information is then shared with the relevant public services. Currently, bereaved people must still notify private companies of a death separately. Can the Government please review the system to see whether this burden could be lessened? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how the extended priority service register announced in the Autumn Statement will work alongside Tell Us Once. In addition, do the Government have any plans to undertake an updated equality impact assessment of Tell Us Once, given that the last one was 12 years ago?
We look forward to working with everyone in this House to carefully understand and, where appropriate, strengthen an important Bill for the future flourishing of the country and the well-being of all.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As one who entered this House in his early 50s, I can recommend that coming in here, just as the mid-life crisis starts to bite, and being, as I was then, Young Tom again, is a great boost to the morale.
I associate myself with the advice given by the right reverent prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. At the end of the recent passage of the Online Safety Bill, there was general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the Minister guiding the Bill safely through the Lords, for his willingness to listen to argument and to amend where necessary. I fear that the noble Viscount will hit some choppy water in this House unless he adopts a similar attitude, and he should certainly take the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, very seriously concerning children’s data rights.
The Government’s declared intention of reducing burdens on organisations while maintaining high data protection standards has met with scepticism and outright criticism from a wide range of industry bodies, civil society organisations and individuals with expertise in this area. As has been said, the Official Opposition in the other place asked that the Bill be recommitted to a Public Bill Committee for further scrutiny, but this was refused. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated, this has put further onus on this House to make sure there is time to listen to and examine the wide range of criticisms and amendments seeking to improve the Bill.
In 2010, I became Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. Among my responsibilities was the ICO and the early negotiations on what became the GDPR. One of my first roles was to go to a facility south of the river to look at our skills in this area. After looking at a number of things, I asked the government official who was showing me the facility whether there were any human rights or privacy issues involved. He said, “Oh no, sir. Tesco knows more about you than we do”. There is a certain profligacy by the individual about their data, along with real concern about their privacy. It is riding those two horses at once that is going to be the challenge of this Bill. I oppose the Bill with an eye to ensuring, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the ICO is well served by this legislation and continues in setting standards and protecting individuals.
Prior to Brexit, I was on one of your Lordship’s sub-committees, where we constantly pressed the Ministers about data adequacy with the EU on our departure. The answers then were very much along the lines of, “Well, it’ll be alright on the night”. I hope that the Minister will again reassure us in his wind up that the data protection legislation in the Bill clarifies the law without deviating from the principles set out in GDPR. The UK’s data adequacy status, granted by the European Commission, is important, and we do not want to see that jeopardised in pursuit of some mythical benefits from Brexit.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Allan will not be joining us for the rest of this; I would have valued his contribution. But I will keep an eye on it, as a number of other colleagues have indicated.
More widely, one of the problems with this Bill is that its scale and how it has been dealt with by the Government in its preparation, false starts and in the other place mean that we are going to legislate for myriad issues, each of which are of importance to the sector, the individual concerned or society and will require our full due care and attention. For example, new powers in Clause 87 and 88, which allow the Secretary of State to offer an exemption for direct marketing provisions used for the purpose of democratic engagement, may invite abuse. I put that mildly. This morning’s FT contains an article raising precisely these fears and this issue must be examined in detail during the passage of the Bill.
One issue that I was going to deal with in detail was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. The Minister might, even at this early stage in the Bill’s progress, provide clarification about the use of the open electoral register for direct marketing purposes. This issue has also been raised with me by the Data & Marketing Association. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, explained, there are big concerns in the market about what companies can do with personal data from the open electoral register and this needs to be resolved.
Unfortunately, considerable market uncertainty has been caused by the enforcement notice by the ICO, which has already been referred to. In the light of all this legal and market uncertainty, and given that this Bill is before the House, the best and most timely option is to address the issue in the Bill and I urge the Government to consider what can be done on this. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and other noble Lords could discuss a joint amendment.
That is just one example of the issues in the Bill that will require detailed examination and close attention. Much of it will be practical and will involve building a framework that brings within it the framework of law and regulation to keep pace with the new technologies that are now part of the digital and data revolution. In this, the impact of AI will cast a long shadow over our deliberations, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Young, and others have made clear.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to the benefits of the wide-ranging briefings that we received prior to today’s debate. Let me assure the authors that none of them will go to waste as we move into Committee. As well as dealing with the mundane and the practical, we have to take seriously the advice contained in one briefing, which read:
“At a time of advancing AI-driven surveillance, and when public concerns over measures such as facial recognition technology are heightened, removing oversight and accountability could have serious implications for public trust in policing”.
This warning could apply to almost any sector, service or industry covered by the Bill. Two quotes leap out to me from the excellent Lords Library briefing on the Bill, which has been referred to. One comes from the Information Commissioner, who calls for a regulator that is “trusted, fair and independent”, and the other comes from techUK, which calls for a Bill that will
“help spur competition and innovation in the market, whilst empowering consumers and delivering better outcomes”.
Riding those two horses at once is now the task before us.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to this House. I look forward to hearing him in future debates.
This Bill is a large Bill, written in an utterly arcane language which normal people will struggle to understand and follow. Hopefully, the Government will try to write Bills in a better way, otherwise it is hard for people to understand the laws and follow them. I have grave misgivings about some parts of this Bill and I will touch on a couple of these issues, which have already been identified by a number of noble Lords.
George Orwell’s iconic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949, raised the spectre of Big Brother. That nightmare has now been brought to reality by a Conservative Government supposedly rolling back the state. The Government have already undermined the people’s right to protest and to withdraw labour. Now comes snooping and 24/7 surveillance of the bank, building society and other accounts of the sick, disabled, poor, elderly and unfortunate, all without a court order. Over 22.4 million people would be targeted by that surveillance, but the account holders will not be told anything about the frequency and depth of this organised snooping.
In true Orwellian doublespeak, the Government claim that the Bill will
“allow the country to realise new post-Brexit freedoms”.
They link the surveillance to, and are stirring up, people’s fears about benefit fraud, while there is absolutely no surveillance of those receiving public subsidies, those mis-selling financial products, those accused of PPE fraud or even a former Chancellor who abused the tax system. Numerous court judgments have condemned the big accounting firms for selling illegal tax-dodge schemes and robbing the public purse, but despite those judgments no major accounting firm has, under this Government, ever been investigated, fined or prosecuted. None of the accounts of those partners or firms is under surveillance. The Bill is part of a class war: it targets only low-income and middle-income people, while big beasts get government contracts.
Currently, the Department for Work and Pensions can request details of bank accounts and transactions on a case-by-case basis on suspicion of fraudulent activity, but Clause 128 and Schedule 11 give the Government unrestrained powers to snoop. The Government say that the Bill
“would allow regular checks to be carried out on the bank accounts held by benefit claimants to spot increases in their savings which push them over the benefit eligibility threshold, or when people spend more time overseas than the benefit rules allow for. This will help identify fraud”
and
“take action more quickly”.
How prevalent is the benefit fraud that the Government wish to tackle? The Government estimate that, in 2023, they lost £8.3 billion to welfare fraud and errors, 80% of which is attributed to fraud. A government statement issued on 23 November said that, as a result of mass surveillance, benefit fraud would save the public purse
“£600 million over the next five years”.
On 29 November, in a debate in the other place, the Minister mentioned the figure of £500 million and, despite a number of challenges, did not correct that estimate. The Government are hoping that mass snooping will generate savings of £100 million to £120 million a year, but we do not have a breakdown of this saving and do not know how they have arrived at that number. I hope that the number is more reliable than the Government’s estimates of the HS2 costs. To put this into context, the Government are spending nearly £1,200 billion this year and they are introducing snooping to save about £100 million a year.
The snooping of bank accounts suggests that the Government are looking for unusual cash-flow patterns. What that means is that, if anyone gives a lump sum to a loved one for Christmas, a birthday, a holiday or home repairs, and it passes through their bank account, the Government could seize on that as evidence of excess resources and reduce or stop their benefits. Suppose that a poor person pawns some household items for a few pounds and temporarily boosts his or her bank balance. Would that person now be labelled a fraudster and lose benefits? The Government have not looked at the details of what would happen.
Many retirees have a joint bank account with another member of the family or with a friend. Under the Government’s crazy plans, the third party would also be put under surveillance because they happen to have a joint account. Can the Minister explain why people not receiving any social security benefits are to be snooped upon, because they would be caught in this trap?
How will the snoopers distinguish temporary and easily explainable boosts in bank balances from others? My background is that I am an accountant and I have investigated things over the years; I helped the Work and Pensions Committee investigate the collapses of BHS and Carillion. So I hope that the Minister can enlighten me on how all this will be done.
I hope that the Minister can also clarify the scope of the Bill as it applies to recipients of the state pension. The Government have classified it as a benefit, so can the Minister explain why? After all, the amount one gets is determined by the number of years of national insurance contributions. So why is it actually a benefit? The Minister in the other place said:
“I agree, to the extent that levels of fraud in state pensions being currently nearly zero, the power is not needed in that case. However, the Government wish to retain an option should the position change in the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 912.]
Why do the Government want to snoop on the bank accounts of OAPs when there is hardly any fraud? Do they have some sinister plan to treat the state pension as a means-tested benefit? Perhaps the Minister could confirm or deny that. If he wishes to deny it, can he explain why the Government are targeting retirees? What have they done?
In this House, we have more than our fair share of senior citizens who receive a state pension, and their bank accounts would also be under surveillance. How long before a Government abuse that information to blackmail Members of this House and erode possibilities of scrutinising the Government of the day? It is opening us all up to blackmail, now or in the future.
In the past, the Government assured us that health data would not be sold—but then sold it to corporations, as we heard earlier. How can we trust the Government not to do the same with data collected via snooping on bank accounts? What will they be selling?
The mass surveillance is not subject to any court order. Concerned citizens will not be told, as their right to know will be further eroded by Clause 9. It is for the courts, not Ministers, to decide whether requests for data are vexatious or excessive. Can the Minister provide us with some data on how many requests for information are received by departments each year and what proportion have been declared to be vexatious and excessive by the courts? The Government cannot just say that they are vexatious—I would rather trust the courts.
Clause 9 obstructs government accountability and further erodes the Nolan principles. As a personal example, I fought a five and a half-year battle against the Treasury to learn about the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International in 1991. It was the biggest banking fraud of the 20th century, which has yet to be investigated. I asked the Treasury for some information and was totally fobbed off. I went to the Information Commissioner, who sided with the Treasury. So I went to the courts to get some information, with the possibility that the judges might declare my attempts to learn the truth vexatious and might even impose legal costs on me. Fortunately, that did not happen—I won the case and the Treasury had to release some documents to me.
The information showed that the Conservative Government were covering up money laundering, frauds, the secret funding of al-Qaeda, Saudi intelligence, arms smugglers, murderers and others. The information given to me has never been put on public record by this Government. Can you imagine what will happen now if quests to learn something about banking fraud are simply labelled vexatious and excessive? How will we hold the Government to account? The Bill makes it harder to shine some light on the secret state and I urge the Government to rethink Clause 9.
Finally, I urge the Minister to answer the questions I have raised, so that we can have a better Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I very much share his concerns about the Government prying into the bank accounts of benefit recipients and pensioners. This is a historic moment, for all the wrong reasons, with the Government looking to pry through the private lives of millions of people, with no evidence that it is in any way necessary. The biggest problem with benefits, of course, is the large amount of money that is left unclaimed or unpaid, due to errors made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
I will also pick up the noble Lord’s point about economic crime. I note that this happens to be the week that, in a Frankfurt court, the former global head of tax at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer acknowledged in his testimony that he had
“glossed over the fact that my legal advice was used for illegal means”.
This was a man who, until 2019, was earning €1.9 million a year.
I have a direct question for the Minister. The Government have talked a great deal about the DWP and their plans in that area. What does the Bill do to tackle economic crime, given that the head of UK Finance described the UK as
“the fraud capital of the world”
and that we have an enormous problem with enablers, down the road in the City of London, who we know are getting around sanctions from the UK Government and others, swishing so much dirty money through London that it is now known as the “London Laundromat”? What does the Bill do on these issues?
I will tick off some points of agreement and concern from previous speeches. The Minister spoke of
“the highest standards of data protection”.
From what I recollect of the Minister’s speech, there was a surprising lack of the Government’s favourite word, “world-leading”. What does it mean if these data protections are not world-leading?
The Minister also said the Bill was “codesigned all the way”. A number of noble Lords pointed to the 260 amendments on Report at the other place. That really does not look like a codesigning process. The benefit of working across many Bills is that this Bill reminds me—and not in a good way—of the Procurement Bill, where your Lordships’ House saw a similar deluge of government amendments and had to try to disentangle the mess. I fear that we are in the same position with this Bill.
I pick up the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron —spectacularly excellent, as always—and her points about edtech and the situation with technology and education systems, and the utter impossibility of teachers, nursery nurses or people in similar positions dredging through the fine detail of every app they might want to use to ensure that their charges are protected. That is obviously not a viable situation. There have to be strong, protective general standards, particularly for apps aimed at children. The Government have to be able to guarantee that those nursery nurses and teachers can just pick up something—“It’s approved, it’s okay”—and use it.
I will also pick up the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made about the importance of data being available to be used for the public good. She referred to research, but I would like—and I invite NGOs that are interested—to think about community uses. I was recently with the National Association of Local Councils, of which I declare that I am a vice-president, in Shropshire, where we saw parish and town councils doing amazing work to institute climate action. I am talking about small villages where data protection is not really an issue, as everyone knows everything about everybody. But we might think of a suburb of Liverpool or a market town, where people do not have the same personal knowledge of each other but where a council or community group could access data for good reasons. How can we make it possible to use these tools for positive purposes?
Briefly picking up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan—another of our experts—I echo his stress on the importance of EU equivalency. We have dumped our small businesses, in particular, in the economic mire again and again through the whole process of Brexit. There is a reason why #brexitreality trends regularly. We have also dumped many of our citizens and residents in that situation. We really must not do it again in the technology field.
I have a couple of what I believe to be original points. I want to address specifically Clauses 28 and 30, and I acknowledge here a briefing from Rights and Security International. It notes that that these clauses enable the Government to grant an opt-out to police forces from having to comply with many of the data protection requirements when they are working with the intelligence services. For example, they could grant police immunity from handling personal data unlawfully and reduce people’s right of access to their personal data held by the authorities.
In the Commons, the Minister said these provisions would be “helpful” and “efficient”. I put it to your Lordships’ House that to interfere with rights such as these, at the very least the Government should claim, to have any justification, that they are “proportionate” and “necessary”. That is an area that I suspect my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will pick up in Committee. There are also issues raised by the Ada Lovelace Institute and by other noble Lord, about the oversight of biometric technologies, including live facial recognition systems, emotion detection and the foundation models that underlie apps such as ChatGPT. These already limited legal safeguards are being further undermined by the Bill, at a point when there is general acknowledgement in the community that we should be heading in the opposite direction. I think we all acknowledge that this a fast-moving area, but the Government are already very clearly behind.
There are two more areas that I particularly want to pick up. One is elections. There has only just started to be focus on this. The Bill would allow the Government to tear up long-standing campaign rules with new exemptions. Now we have safeguards against direct marketing. These are being removed and,
“for the purposes of democratic engagement”,
anyone from 14 years and above can be targeted. I feel like warning the Government: my experience with young people is that the more they see of the Government, the less they like them, so they might want to think about what messages they send them. Seriously, I note that the Information Commissioner’s Office said during the public consultation on the Bill—and we can really hear the bureaucratic speak here—
“This is an area in which there are significant potential risks to people if any future policy is not implemented very carefully”.
The discussion of the Bill has reflected how this could put us in a situation where our elections are even more like those in the United States of America, which is of course no recommendation at all with the place of big money in their politics. I note that we really need to link this with the Government’s recent decision to massively increase election spending limits. Put those two things together and I suggest that is a real threat to what limited democracy we already have left in this country.
There is a further area which I am not going to go into in great detail, given the hour and the day, but which I will probably come back to in Committee. There is an extensive briefing, which I am sure many have seen from Understanding Patient Data. It is really important how the Bill comes up with a different definition of identifiable data. In the health sector, it is very common to use pseudonymous information from which key bits are removed, but it is still quite possible to go backwards and identify an individual from their data because they have an extremely rare disease and they live in this area of the country, or something like that.
This new Bill has, instead, more of a subjective test; the definition seems to rely on the judgment of the data controller and what they know. If the Minister has not looked at the briefing from Understanding Patient Data, I really urge him to because there are concerns here and we already have very grave concern in our community about the use of medical data, the possible loss of anonymity, and the reuse of data for commercial research. We are, again, coming to an Americanisation of our health system.
I conclude by saying that we have an enormous amount of work to do here in your Lordships’ House; I am trying not to let my head sink quietly on to the Bench in front of me, but we are going to have a break first, of course. I say to all noble Lords and—echoing the comments earlier—the many members of staff who support us by working so hard and often so late: thank you very much and Merry Christmas all.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part on Second Reading; I declare my interests in financial services and technology, in Ecospend Ltd and Boston Ltd. There is a fundamental truth at the heart of our deliberations, both on Second Reading and as we progress to Committee: that is it is our data. There are no great large language models; perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them large data models —maybe then they would be more easily and quickly understood by more people. Ultimately, our data is going into AI for potentially positive and transformational purposes but only if there is consent, understanding, trustworthiness and a real connection between the purpose to which the AI is being put and those of us whose data is being put into the AI.
I am going to focus on four areas: one is data adequacy, which has already, understandably, been heavily mentioned; then AI, smart data and digital ID. I can probably compress everything I was going to say on the first subject by simply asking my noble friend the Minister: how will the Bill assure adequacy between the UK and the EU? It is quite a large Bill— as other noble Lords have commented—yet it still has a number of gaps that I am sure we will all be keen to fully fill in when we return in 2024. As already mentioned, AI is nothing without data, so what checks are being put in place for many of the suggestions throughout the Bill where AI is used to interrogate individuals’ data? Would it not be absolutely appropriate for there to be effective, clear, transparent labelling across all AI uses, not least in the public sector but across all public and private sector uses? Saying this almost feels like going off track from the Bill into AI considerations, but it seems impossible to consider the Bill without seeing how it is inextricably linked to AI and the pro-innovation AI White Paper published earlier this year. Does the Minister not agree? How much line-by-line analysis has been done of the Bill to ensure that there is coherence across the Government’s ambitions for AI and what is currently set out in this Bill?
On smart data, there are clearly extraordinary opportunities but they are not inevitabilities. To consider just one sector, the energy sector, to be able potentially to deploy customers’ data in real time—through their smart meters, for example—with potential to auto-shift in real time to the cheapest tariff, could be extraordinarily positive. But again, that is only if there is an understanding of how the consent mechanisms will work and how each citizen is enabled to understand that it is their data. There are potentially huge opportunities, not least to do something significant about the poverty premium, where all too often those who find themselves with the least are forced to pay the most, often for essential services such as energy. What are the Government doing in terms of looking at additional sectors for smart data deployment? What areas are the state activities? What areas of previous state activity are being considered for the deployment of smart data? What stage is that analysis at?
On digital ID, about which I have spoken a lot over previous years, again there are huge opportunities and possibilities. I welcome what is in the Bill around the potential use of digital ID in property transactions. This could be an extraordinarily positive development. What other areas are being looked at for potential digital ID usage? What stage is that analysis at? Also, is what is set out in the Bill coherent with other government work in other departments on digital ID? It seems that a lot has been done and there have been a number of efforts from various Administrations on digital ID, but we are yet to realise the prize it could bring.
I will ask my noble friend some questions in conclusion. First, how will the introduction of the SRI improve things compared with the data protection officer? Again, how will that impact on issues such as, but not limited to, adequacy? Similarly, linking back to artificial intelligence, a key principle—though not foolproof by any measure and certainly not a silver bullet, but important none the less—is the human in the loop. The Bill is currently some way short of a clear, effective definition and exposition of how meaningful human intervention, human involvement and human oversight will work where autonomous systems are at play. What are the Government’s plans to address that significant gap in the Bill as currently drafted?
I end where I began, with the simple truth that it is our data. Data has been described in various terms, not least as the new oil, but that definition gets us nowhere. It is so much more profound than that. Ultimately it is part of us and, when it is put together in combination, it gets so close to giving such a detailed, personal and almost complete picture of us—ultimately the digital twin, if you will. Are the Government content that the Bill does everything to respect and fully understand the need for everything to be seen as trustworthy, to be understood in terms of it being our data and our decision, and that we decide what data to deploy, for what purpose, to whom and for what time period? It is our data.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I hope that the Government will learn from his wisdom. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford; I am glad that his family was here to witness his powerful contribution.
I support the Government’s laudable aim to make the UK the most innovative society in the world of science and technology. I wish to record my gratitude for the many briefings provided to us by the Library, the 5Rights Foundation, Big Brother Watch, CRISP and Marie Curie, among many other notable organisations and individuals. The Government make sweeping assurances that this legislation is based on their commitment to all citizens enjoying access to a fair, inclusive and trustworthy digital environment. It is grounded in the hopes that an algorithmic system would be designed to protect people from harm and from unsafe, unaccountable surveillance, with public involvement in its development, ensuring adequate safeguards as well as improved skills and information literacy. That really describes the mouthful of different aspects of the Bill.
Every part of our life is determined by some form of digitalisation, not least via our devices; they are an ever-present reminder, if any were required, of the interconnectedness of our existence at home and across the globe. We are living through an exponential rise in social media information alongside the extraordinary growth of technologies’ surveillance capacity. It is sometimes impossible to differentiate truth and reality in the mass of content across multiple platforms, and thus an assurance of public safeguarding within fast-moving technologies may not be achievable quite as easily as the Government suggest. Experts are consistently warning us of yet uncharted harm in the advent of AI-driven technology, causing legitimate concerns for civic society organisations.
So where does an ordinary citizen turn to if they get caught up in some of the Bill’s punitive measures? As has been stated by noble Lords, contradicting progress made in this House, the Bill will provide the Government with yet more unprecedented powers, which will evidently result in the limiting of and infringement on citizens’ rights to privacy; this was detailed powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. The Bill is complex and has a broad spectrum of remits that will impact every aspect of our lives: in the home, at work and outside. Time will not permit us all to consider adequately the questions and concerns raised by many well-respected organisations; we in this Parliament are therefore obliged to all our citizens to ensure that our legislation is not immune to proper scrutiny.
Noteworthy parts of the Bill that cause concern include those regarding the safeguarding of children’s well-being. I thank the 5Rights Foundation for its briefing and agree that the Bill’s proposed changes to the UK’s data protection regime risk eroding the high level of privacy that children currently have a right to, making them less safe online. My noble friend Lady Kidron raised these matters thoroughly with her usual expertise; I absolutely agree that children’s safety cannot be designed to maximise economic benefits and add my voice to her call that the Government must keep their promise to bereaved families and ensure that children continue to be given heightened levels of data protection.
This leads me on to the matter of data collection, including how data is stored and shared with external organisations. In this context, there must be absolute commitment from the Government to preserving the integrity of our personal data. Without informed consent, organisations and institutions should not and cannot be allowed to access personal information by assuming consent.
We know that huge datasets are gathered by law enforcement, our NHS, welfare and financial services, alongside local authorities for voter registration purposes. The Data and Marketing Association, representing around 700 companies, including charities and commercial brands, suggests that Clauses 114 and 115, on the new exemption for direct marketing used for democratic engagement, could be open to abuse. While recognising that an open electoral register has been an important resource for business and charities for verification of addresses, it has also been used for direct business marketing, as has been stated.
Any amendments to this aspect of the Bill must not be on the assumption that, if a person does not opt out, she or he is fully cognisant of giving automatic consent for data sharing. I do not accept that this is well known to and understood by the millions of elderly and vulnerable people who do not opt out, or that they do so knowingly. It is our duty to empower all citizens, not just those who can readily access and are confident in this rapidly expanding digital environment. Noting the Minister’s comment on co-designing the Bill with stakeholders, will he give an assurance that partners included advocacy and civil rights organisations?
Clause 9 would give public authorities and other bodies wider scope to refuse subject access requests, making it more difficult for people to find out what information about them is being held and how it is being used. Clause 9 should not have a place in this legislation.
Clause 20 would water down requirements to carry out a proper impact assessment. This means that in many cases, organisations and businesses, including local authorities processing data, will not have to fully consider whether data processing is necessary and proportional. Clause 20 should also be removed from this Bill.
I hope to see us strengthening Clauses 110, 113 and 116 providing greater protection to consent and safeguarding consumers. Whatever the final impact of the legislation, many public and corporate institutions already hold a ginormous amount of digital materials. As someone with years of local authority experience, I can say that safeguarding paper files seems like an alternate universe. All the protocols were written on every manager’s file, and any breaches or failures could have landed any one of us in court. I cannot comprehend all the protocol that may be required to protect individual data under this Bill. How will the Government monitor whether protocols issued as a result of this legislation are actually being adhered to? Who will be held accountable for the anonymity of data holders, given the heightened concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron?
When it comes to issues of surveillance of our citizens and the use of retention of biometric data, no matter the reason we must provide the highest standards and maximum safeguards to all those who will determine whether an individual has transgressed rules. The Commons’ deliberation on bank spying on welfare claimants would have caused many vulnerable elders distress, as will continuous police profiling of some sections of our communities for perceived fraudulent behaviour and/or acting against national security interests. We must not feel a false sense of security by relying on any individual Ministers to make arbitrary decisions and add another list to surveillance. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I question how the DWP, bank personnel and police officers will implement a law that falls below parliamentary scrutiny and the highest standards of ethics.
We must acknowledge that the Bill has caused wide- spread concerns. I agree with many who have written to me that we require a nationwide education programme to ensure wider public knowledge, and that consumer groups and charities understand thoroughly how they are likely to be affected by the proposed legislation and, more importantly, the potential impact of the proposed power vis-à-vis the relationship with the DWP and other institutions, if we are to avoid thousands of litigations.
In fact, CRISP’s insightful briefing reminds us to consider genuine, meaningful and trustworthy oversight of the Bill, which aims to simplify the regulatory architecture of UK surveillance oversight but risks creating a vacuum in the regulation of digital surveillance, abandoning clear guidance and standards, complicating oversight governance, and creating vulnerabilities for users of these technologies and for the rights of those subjected to them.
The Bill removes the reporting obligations of the Biometric and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s role on appropriate surveillance use, as has been stated to Parliament and the public, which endangers visibility and the accountability of police activities. This gives extensive powers in relation to the causes raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. The Bill must therefore retain the surveillance camera code of practice, which is essential for public trust.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend our data protection laws via statutory instrument without adequate scrutiny by Parliament. Many fear that such extensive powers cannot possibly be for the public good, given the records of all Governments, be it with regard to the manipulation of facts or institutional profiling of black and other minoritised communities adversely used in the name of national security. This will simply not be accepted by today's digitalised generation, and the proposition that such information can be held indefinitely without remedy or recourse to justice cannot bode well for our nations.
At a glance, the UK GDPR sets out seven principles, including integrity and accountability. These fundamental rights for citizens cannot be guaranteed under the Bill as it is now. I look forward to all of us making the necessary changes to make better laws for public good.
Finally, I wish all our outstanding staff across the House, noble Lords and their families who are celebrating a loving and joyful Christmas. I wish everyone well.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that in this area and others he will be a valuable addition to the House.
One of the advantages of speaking towards the end of the debate is that much of what one could have said has already been said. I particularly enjoyed the speech from my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth highlighting the way in which the Bill is consistently behind the curve, always fighting the last war. To some extent, that is inevitable in a field like this, which is developing so rapidly, and I am not convinced that sufficient thought has been given to how developments in digital technology require developments in how it is tackled in legislation.
I think we will have an interesting Committee, in which I will participate as much as I can. The Minister will have a busy spring, with at least two major Bills going through. I hope the Whips have taken account of the number of concerns that have been expressed in this debate, and by external bodies, and that enough time will be allowed in Committee. A particular concern is the large number of amendments added at a late stage in the Commons, which have not had sufficient consideration. It will be our job to look at them in detail.
The proposal to allow the inspection of people’s bank accounts with no due cause is a matter of due concern, which has been mentioned by many people in this debate. I highlight the remarks of UK Finance, the representative body for the banking and financial sector. It says:
“These Department for Work and Pensions proposals have been suggested previously, but they are not part of the economic crime plan 2 or fraud strategy, which are the focus of industry efforts in terms of public-private partnership in tackling economic crime”.
UK Finance goes on to suggest that powers should be more narrowly focused, that they should not leave vulnerable customers disadvantaged—as would appear to be the case in the current drafting—and that further consultation is needed with consumer groups and charities to capture the wider needs of people affected by this proposal. It also suggests that the delivery time for this proposal should be extended even further into the future. For the benefit of the Minister, I shall just interpret that by explaining that what it is saying is, “We have no idea where this proposal came from. It has no part in the overall strategy that was being developed to tackle fraud and we want it pushed off into the indefinite future”—in other words, do not bother. Perhaps the Minister will listen to UK Finance.
I want to focus my remarks particularly on health and health data, which is a particular concern. It is so intimate and personal that it requires additional consideration. It is not just another piece of data; this goes to heart of who we are. The Government said in the context of the King’s Speech that this Bill has been written with industry and for industry. Well, quite. It is possible that some of the changes might result in less work for businesses, including those working in healthcare, but the danger is that the additional flexibility which is being proposed will in fact create additional costs because it is less clear and straightforward, there will be increased risks of disclosure of information that should not be disclosed, and the non-standardised regime will just lead to confusion.
Data regulation can slow down the pace of data sharing, increase people’s concerns about risk, and make research and innovation more difficult. Patients and the public generally quite rightly expect particularly high standards in this area, and I have concerns that this Bill makes the situation worse and that its influence is negative rather than positive. This is a danger, because it affects the public’s attitude to health and health data. If people are worried about the disclosure of their information, this impacts on them seeking and taking advantage of healthcare. That affects all of us, so it is not just a matter of personal concern.
One of the big arguments for the disclosure of health data is that it is available for scientific and developmental research. The need for this is recognised and there are additional safeguards. The UK Health Security Agency can reuse data that is collected by the NHS for the business of disease control, and that is something I am sure we all favour. However, the concept that any data can be reused for scientific purposes has grave dangers, particularly when this Bill fails to define tightly enough what the scientific and developmental research amounts to. The definition of scientific research here appears to apply to commercial as well as non-commercial outfits, whether it is funded publicly or is a private development. This is the sort of concern that we are going to have to tackle in Committee to provide people with the protection that they quite rightly expect.
If we look in more detail at health data, we see that it is protected by the Caldicott principles for health and social care data. It is worth reading the eight principles. The first sets the scene. It says, in the context of social care:
“Every proposed use … of confidential information should be clearly defined, scrutinised and documented, with continuing uses regularly reviewed by an appropriate guardian”.
This Bill is in grave danger of moving beyond that level of protection, which has been agreed and which people expect. People want and expect better regulation of their personal data and more say over what happens to it. This Bill moves us away from that.
It is worth looking in this context at the views of the BMA, which is particularly concerned about health data. It emphasises the fact that the public expect high standards and calls on this House to challenge what it regards as the “problematic provisions” and to seek some reassurance from the Government. I will list what the BMA regards as problematic provisions and why it does not like them: Clause 11, which erodes transparency of information to data subjects; Clauses 32, 35, 143 and 144, which risk eroding regulatory independence and freedom; Clause 1, which risks eroding protections for data by narrowing the definition of “personal data”; Clause 14, which risks eroding trust in AI; Clause 17, which risks eroding the expertise and independence of organisational oversight; and Clauses 20 and 21, which risk eroding organisational data governance. We will need to explore all of these issues in Committee. The hope is that they will get the attention that they deserve.
When it comes to medical data, there is an even stronger case, which the Bill needs to tackle straight on, around people’s genetic information. This is the holy grail of data, which people are desperate to get hold of. It says so much about people, their background and their experiences. We need a super level of protection for genetic data. Again, this is something that needs to be tackled in the Bill.
There are other issues of concern that I could mention—for example, the abolition of the Biometrics Commissioner and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. This is a point of particular concern, raised by a number of bodies. It is quite clear that something is being lost by moving these over to a single commissioner. There is a softer power held by the commissioners, which, to be honest, a single commissioner will not have the time or the bandwidth to deal with.
There is also concern that there needs to be explicit provision in the Bill to enable representative bodies, such as trade unions and commercial organisations, to pursue complaints and issues of concern on behalf of individuals. The issue of direct marketing, particularly of financial services, needs to be addressed.
So there is lots to do on this Bill. I hope the Minister recognises that, at this stage, we are just highlighting issues that need to be looked at in detail, and that time will be provided in Committee to deal with all these issues properly.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, at this late stage in any debate much of the field is likely to have been covered, but, as someone deeply involved in the crafting, drafting and evolution of the EU GDPR while an MEP in Brussels, I declare a strong vested interest in this subject. I hope that the Minister will not be too negative about the work that we did —much of it was done by Brits in Europe—on producing the GDPR in the first place.
I raised this issue at the recent UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and in bilateral discussions with the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee, on which I served for many years, on its recent visit to London. Let me be candid: while the GDPR stands as a significant achievement, it is not without need for enhancement or improvement. The world has undergone a seismic shift since the GDPR’s inception, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence. Both the UK and the EU need to get better at developing smart legislation. Smart legislation is not only adaptive and forward-looking; it is also flexible enough to evolve alongside emerging trends and challenges.
The importance of such legislation is highlighted by the rapid advancement in various sectors, and particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence—as so well referred to by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond—and how our data is used. These fields are evolving at a pace that traditional legislative processes struggle to match. Such an approach is vital, not only to foster innovation but to ensure that regulations remain relevant and effective in a swiftly changing world, helping to maintain our competitive edge while upholding our core values and standards.
The aspirations of this Bill, which is aimed at modernising and streamlining the UK’s data protection framework while upholding stringent standards, are indeed laudable. I regret that, when my noble friend Lord Kamall was speaking about cookies, I was temporarily out of the Chamber enjoying a culinary cookie for lunch. While there may be further advantages to be unearthed in the depths of this complex legislation, so far, the biggest benefit I have seen is its commitment to removing cookie pop-ups. Above all, we must tread carefully to ensure international compliance, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords, and steadfastly adhere to the bedrock GDPR principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation and citizens’ redress.
On a procedural note, following other noble Lords, the Government’s recent flurry of amendments—I think there were 266 in total, including 38 new clauses and two new schedules, a staggering 240 of which were introduced at the 11th hour—places a key duty on our House to meticulously scrutinise the new legislation line by line. I have heard other speakers refer to my friend, the right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden, in the other place, who astutely observed that that House has
“in effect delegated large parts of the work on this important Bill to the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 888.]
I have to say that that is wonderful because, for those of us who are always arguing that this is the House that does the work, that is an acknowledgement of its skills and powers. It is a most welcome reference.
I wish to draw the House’s attention briefly to three important terms: adequacy, which noble Lords have heard about, equivalence and approximation. Adequacy in data protection primarily comes from the EU’s legal framework. It describes the standard that non-EU countries must meet to allow free flow of personal data from the EU. The European Commission assesses this adequacy, considering domestic laws and international commitments. The UK currently benefits from the EU’s two data adequacy decisions, which, I remind the House, are unilateral. However, we stand on the cusp of a crucial review in 2024, when the Commission will decide the fate of extending data adequacy for another four years and it has the power to withdraw its decision in the meantime if we threaten the basis for it. This Bill must not increase the risk of that happening.
Equivalence in the realm of data protection signifies that different systems or standards, while not mirror images, offer comparable levels of protection. It is about viewing a non-EU country’s data protection laws through a lens that recognises their parity with GDPR in safeguarding personal data. Past EU adequacy decisions have not demanded a carbon copy of laws; rather, they seek an essentially equivalent regulatory landscape.
Approximation refers to aligning the laws of EU member states with each other. In data protection, it could describe efforts to align national laws with GDPR standards. The imperative of maintaining data adequacy with the EU cannot be overstated; in fact, it has been stated by many noble Lords today. It stands as a top priority for UK business and industry, a linchpin in law enforcement co-operation, and a gateway to other vital databases. The economic stakes are monumental for both sides: EU personal data-enabled services exports to the UK were worth approximately £42 billion in 2018, and exports from the UK to the EU were worth £85 billion.
I commend the Government for listening to concerns that I and others have raised about democratic oversight and the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The amendment to Clause 35, removing the proposal for the Secretary of State to veto ICO codes of practice, was welcome. This move has, I am informed, sent reassuring signals to our friends in Brussels. However, a concern still remains regarding the UK’s new ambition for adequacy partnerships with third countries. The Government’s impact assessment lists the United States, Australia, the Republic of Korea, Dubai International Finance Centre, Singapore and Colombia, with future agreements with India, Brazil, Kenya and Indonesia listed as priorities.
Some of these nations have data standards that may not align with those of the EU or in fact offer fewer safeguards than our current system. I urge extreme caution in this area. We do not want to be in the situation where we gain a data partnership with Kenya but jeopardise our total data adequacy with the EU. Fundamentally, this Bill should not weaken data protection rights and safeguards. It should ensure transparency in data use and decision-making, uphold requirements for data processors to consider the rights and interests of affected individuals and, importantly, not stray too far from international regulations.
I urge my noble friend the Minister and others to see that adopting a policy of permanent dynamic alignment with the EU GDPR is important, engaging actively with the EU as a partner, not just implementing new rules blindly. Protecting and strengthening the UK-EU data partnership offers an opportunity for closer co-operation, benefiting businesses, consumers, innovation and law enforcement; and together, we can reach out to others to encourage them to join these truly international standards.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill today and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on his maiden speech. I think we all very much appreciated his valuable perspective on SMEs having to grapple with the intricacies of data protection. I very much look forward to his contributions—perhaps in Committee, if he feels brave enough.
The Minister will have heard the concerns expressed throughout the House—not a single speaker failed to express concerns about the contents of the Bill. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham reminded us that the retention and enhancement of public trust in data use and sharing is of key importance, but so much of the Bill seems almost entirely motivated by the Government’s desire to be divergent from the EU to get some kind of Brexit dividend.
As we have heard from all around the House, the Bill dilutes where it should strengthen the rights of data subjects. We can then all agree on the benefits of data sharing without the risks involved. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is clearly of that view, alongside numerous others, such as the Ada Lovelace Institute and as many as 26 privacy advocacy groups. Even on the Government’s own estimates, the Bill will have a minimal positive impact on compliance costs—in fact, it will simply lead to companies doing business in Europe having to comply with two sets of regulations.
I will be specific. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, set out the catalogue, and I will go through a number of areas where I believe those rights are being diluted. The amended and more subjective definition of “personal data” will narrow the scope of what is considered personal data, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pointed out. Schedule 1 sets out a new annexe to the GDPR, with the types of processing activities that the Government have determined have a recognised legitimate interest and will not require a legitimate interest human rights balancing test to be carried out. Future Secretaries of State can amend or add to this list of recognised legitimate interests through secondary legislation. As a result, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, it will become easier for political parties to target children as young as 14 during election campaigns, even though they cannot vote until they are 16 or 18, depending on the jurisdiction.
The Bill will change the threshold for refusing a subject access request, which will widen the grounds on which an organisation could refuse requests. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, reminded us of the existing difficulties of making those subject access requests. Clause 12, added on Report in the Commons, further tips power away from the individual’s ability to access data.
There are also changes to the automated decision-making provisions under Article 22 of the GDPR—the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, reminded us of the importance of the human in the loop. The Bill replaces Article 22 with articles that reduce human review of automated decision-making. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out, Article 22 should in fact be strengthened so that it applies to partly automated processing as well, and it should give rights to people affected by an automated decision, not just those who provide data. This should be the case especially in the workplace. A decision about you may be determined by data about other people whom you may never have met.
The Bill amends the circumstances in which personal datasets can be reused for research purposes. New clarifying guidance would have been sufficient, but for-profit commercial research is now included. As the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Davies, pointed out and as we discussed in debates on the then Online Safety Bill, the Bill does nothing where it really matters: on public interest researcher access.
The Bill moves away from UK GDPR requirements for mandatory data protection officers, and it also removes the requirement for data protection impact assessments. All this simply sets up a potential dual compliance system with less assurance—with what benefit? Under the new Bill, a controller or processor will be exempt from the duty to keep records, unless they are carrying out high-risk processing activities. But how effective will this be? One of the main ways of demonstrating compliance with GDPR is to have a record of processing activities.
There are also changes to the Information Commissioner’s role. We are all concerned about whether the creation of a new board will enable the ICO to maintain its current level of independence for data adequacy purposes. This is so important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord McNally pointed out.
As regards intragroup transfers, there is concern from the National Aids Trust that Clause 5, permitting the intragroup transmission of personal health data
“where that is necessary for … administrative purposes”,
could mean that HIV/AIDS status is inadequately protected in workplace settings.
Schedule 5 to the Bill amends Chapter 5 of the UK GDPR to reform the UK’s regime for international transfers, with potential adverse consequences for business. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, reminded us of the dangers of adopting too low standards internationally. This clearly has the potential to provide less protection for data subjects than the current test.
In Clause 17, the Bill removes a key enabler of collective interests, consultation with those affected by data and processing during the data protection risk assessment process, and it fails to provide alternative opportunities. Then there is the removal of the legal obligation to appoint a representative. This risks data breaches not being reported, takes away a channel of communication used by the ICO to facilitate its investigations, and increases the frustration of UK businesses in dealing with overseas companies that come to the UK market underprepared to comply with the UK GDPR.
Given that catalogue, it is hardly surprising that so many noble Lords have raised the issue of data adequacy. If I read out the list of all the noble Lords who have mentioned it, I would probably mention almost every single speaker in this debate. It is clear that the Bill significantly lowers data protection standards in the UK, as compared with the EU. On these Benches, our view is that this will undermine the basis of the UK’s EU data adequacy. The essential equivalence between the UK and the EU regimes has been critical to business continuity following Brexit. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that, as the UK diverges from the EU GDPR, the risk of the EU revoking its adequacy decisions will increase. So I very much hope that the Minister, in response to all the questions he has been asked about data adequacy, has some pretty good answers, because there is certainly a considerable degree of concern around the House about the future of data adequacy.
In addition, there are aspects of the Bill that are just plain wrong. The Government need to deliver in full on their commitments to bereaved families made during the passage of what became the Online Safety Act, regarding access to their children’s data, as we have heard today from across the House, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in insisting that this is extended to all deaths of children. I very much hope that the Minister will harden up on his assurances at the end of the debate.
The noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Vaux, questioned the abolition of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, and the diminution of the duties relating to biometric data. Society is witnessing an unprecedented acceleration in the capability and reach of surveillance technologies, particularly live facial recognition, and we need the commissioner and Surveillance Camera Code of Practice in place. As the Ada Lovelace Institute says in its report Countermeasures, we need new and more comprehensive legislation on the use of biometrics, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission agrees with that too.
As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, described as unrestrained financial powers, inserted at Commons Report stage, Sir Stephen Timms MP, chair of the DWP Select Committee, very rightly expressed strong concerns about this, as did many noble Lords today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Fox. These powers are entirely disproportionate and we will be strongly opposing them.
Then we have the new national security certificates and designation notices, which were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. These would give the Home Secretary great and unaccountable powers to authorise the police to violate our privacy rights, through the use of national security certificates and designation notices, without challenge. The Government have failed to explain why they believe these clauses are necessary to safeguard national security.
There is a whole series of missed opportunities during the course of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said in his opening speech, the Bill was an opportunity to create ethical, transparent and safe standards for AI systems. A number of noble Lords across the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, and my noble friend Lord McNally, all said that this is a wasted opportunity to create measures adequate to an era of ubiquitous use of data through AI systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in particular talked about this in relation to children, generative AI and educational technology. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked of this in the public sector, where it is so important as well.
The EU has just agreed in principle to a new AI Act. We are miles behind the curve. Then, of course, we have the new identification verification framework. The UK has chosen not to allow private sector digital ID systems to be used for access. Perhaps the Government could explain why that is the case.
There are a number of other areas, such as new models of personal data control, which were advocated as long ago as 2017, with the Hall-Pesenti review. Why are the Government not being more imaginative in that sense? There is also the avoidance of creating a new offence of identity theft. That seems to be a great missed opportunity in this Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned, there is the question of holding AI system providers to be legally accountable for the generation of child sexual abuse material online by using their datasets. My noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised the case of ICO v Experian. Why are the Government not taking the opportunity to correct that case?
In the face of the need to do more to protect citizens’ rights, this Bill is a dangerous distraction. It waters down rights, it is a huge risk to data adequacy, it is wrong in many areas and it is a great missed opportunity in many others. We on these Benches will oppose a Bill which appears to have very few friends around the House. We want to amend a great many of the provisions of the Bill and we want to scrutinise many other aspects of it where the amendments came through at a very late stage. I am afraid the Government should expect this Bill to have a pretty rough passage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, first I want to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken today, and actually, one noble Baroness who has not: my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sure the whole House will want to wish her a safe and speedy recovery.
While I am name-checking, I would also like to join in the general congratulation of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who, as others have observed, made a valuable case on behalf of small businesses and SMEs generally, and also called, in his words, for investment to assist this sector to deal with the challenges of data protection.
The range of concerns raised is a good indication of the complexity of this Bill and the issues which will keep us pretty busy in Committee, and I am sure well beyond. We have been well briefed; a record number of briefings have been dispatched in our direction, and they have been most welcome in making sure that we are on top of the content of this Bill.
At the outset, let me make it clear that while we support the principle of modernising data protection legislation and making it suitable for a rapidly changing technological landscape, one that is fit for purpose, we join with noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, who made the case for ensuring that the legislation is relevant. We need to properly scrutinise this, and we understand the need to simplify the rules and make them clearer for all concerned. Most speakers commented on this real need and desire.
However, as others have said, this Bill represents a missed opportunity to grasp the challenges in front of us. It tinkers rather than reforms, it fails to offer a new direction and it fails to capitalise on the positive opportunities the use of data affords, including making data work for the wider social good. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made a good case in saying it is our data and therefore needs to be treated with respect. I do not think this Bill does that.
The Bill fails to build on the important safeguards and protections that have been hard won by others in other fields of legislation covering the digital world, in particular, about the use of personal data that we want to see upheld and strengthened. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made an inspired speech, pleading with us to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and others.
The Bill also fails to provide the simplicity and certainty that businesses desire, given that it is vital that we retain our data adequacy status with the EU. Therefore, businesses will find themselves navigating two similar but, as others have said, divergent sets of rules, a point well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Kirkhope. In short, it feels like a temporary holding position rather than a blueprint for reform, and I suspect that, all too soon, we will be back here with a new Bill—perhaps a data protection (No. 3) Bill—which will address the more profound issues at the frontier of data use.
Before that, I must take over the points made by my noble friend Lord Knight, who opened the debate for us. It is an affront to our parliamentary system that the Government chose to table 266 amendments on the last available day before Report in the Commons—about 150 pages of amendments to consider in a single debate. The marvellous notes that accompany the Bill had to be expanded by something like a fifth to take account of all these amendments; it has grown over time. Clearly, our Commons colleagues had no way of being able to scrutinise these amendments with any degree of effectiveness, and David Davis made the point that it is down to us now to make sure that that job is well done.
I agree that some of the amendments are technical, but others are very significant, so can the Minister explain why it was felt necessary to rush them through without debate? For example, the new Schedule 1 will grant the Secretary of State the power to require banks, or other financial institutions, to provide the personal data for anyone in receipt of benefits. These include state pensions and universal credit, but they also include other benefits—working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit, pension credit, jobseeker’s allowance and personal independence payments. That is a long list; we think that it probably covers some 40% of the population. What is the Government’s real need here?
Yesterday, we had a consultation session with the Minister. I asked where the proposals came from, and he was very honest that they were included in a DWP paper on fraud detection some two years ago. Why is it that the amendments were put into the Bill so late in the day, when they have been around and accessible to the Government for two years? Why has there not been any effective consultation on this? Nobody was asked whether they wanted these changes made, and it seems to me that the Government have acted in an entirely high-handed way.
Most of the population will fall into one or the other of the categories, as my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made clear. Some, such as the noble Lord, think that they might be exempted—but, having listened to my list, he may think otherwise. The criteria for these data searches are not clarified in the Bill and have no legislative limit. Why is that the case?
As Mel Stride and the DWP officials made clear when giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee recently, this is not about accessing individual bank accounts directly where fraud is suspected, it is about asking for bulk data from financial organisations. How will the Government be able to guarantee data security with bulk searches? When were the Government planning to tell the citizens of this country that they were planning to take this new set of powers to look into their accounts? I warn the Minister that I do not think it will go down very well, when the Government fully explain this.
Meanwhile, the banking sector has also raised concerns about the proposals, which it describes as too broad and liable to put vulnerable customers at a disadvantage. The ICO also questions the proportionality of the measure. Let me make our position clear on this: Labour is unreservedly committed to tackling fraud. We will pursue the fraudsters, conmen and claimants who try to take money from the public purse fraudulently or illegally. This includes those involved in tax fraud or dodgy PPE contracts. As our shadow Minister Chris Bryant made clear in the Commons:
“I back 100% any attempt to tackle fraud in the system, and … will work with the Government to get the legislation right, but this is not the way to do it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 887.]
I hope that the Minister can confirm that he will work with stakeholders, banks and ourselves to find a better way to focus on tackling fraud in all its guises.
Another aspect of the Bill that was revealed at a late date are the rules governing democratic engagement, to which a number of Peers have referred today. The Bill extends the opportunities for direct mail marketing for charitable or political purposes. It also allows the Secretary of State to change the rules for the purposes of democratic engagement. It has now become clear that this will allow the Government to switch off the direct marketing rules in the run-up to an election. Currently, parties are not allowed to send emails, texts, voicemails and so on to individuals without their specific consent. We are concerned that changing this rule could transform UK elections. These powers were opposed in the public consultation on the Bill; this is not what the public want. We have to wonder at the motives of the Government in trying to change these rules at such a late stage and with the minimum of scrutiny. This is an issue to which we will return in Committee; I hope that the Minister can come up with a better justification than his colleagues in the Commons were able to.
I turn to other important aspects of the Bill. A number of noble Lords gave examples of how personal rights to information and data protection, which were previously in the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, have been watered down or compromised. For example, subject access requests have been diluted by allowing companies to refuse such requests on the grounds of being excessive or vexatious—terms that, by their very nature, are hard to define—or by allowing the Secretary of State to define who has a recognised, legitimate interest for processing personal data. Similarly, there is no definition in the Bill of what constitutes high-risk processing —risking uncertainty and instability for businesses and the potential misuse of personal data. We will want to explore these definitions in more detail.
A number of noble Lords quite rightly raised the widespread fear of machines making fundamental decisions about our lives with no recourse to a human being to moderate the decision. The impact of this can be felt more widely than an individual data subject—it can impact on a wider group of citizens as decisions are made, for example, on policing priorities, healthcare and education. This can also have a hugely significant impact in the workplace. Obviously, algorithms and data analysis can bring huge benefits to the workplace, cutting out mundane tasks and ensuring greater job satisfaction. But we also need to ensure that workers and their representatives know what data is being collected on them and have an opportunity for human contact, review and redress when an algorithmic system is used to make a decision. For example, we need to avoid a repeat of the experience of the Just Eat couriers who were unfairly sacked by a computer. We will want to explore how the rights of individuals, groups of citizens and workers can better be protected from unfair or biased automated decisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others have argued the case for new powers needed to give coroners the right to access information held by tech companies on children’s data where there is a suspicion that the online world contributed to their death and demise. This is a huge and tragic issue that the Government have sadly ducked, although the promise to listen that I heard from the Minister was very welcome. We shall ensure that we keep him to that commitment.
Despite all the promises made, however, the Government have broken the trust of bereaved parents who were expecting this issue to be resolved in the Bill. Instead, the amendment addresses only cases where a child has taken their own life. We will do what we can in this Bill to make sure that the commitments made in the Online Safety Act are fully honoured.
On a separate but important point, Clause 2 allows companies to exploit children’s data for commercial purposes. We believe that without further safeguards, children’s rights will be put very much at risk as companies collect information on where they live, what they buy, how they travel and what they study. We will seek to firm up those children’s rights as the Bill goes forward.
On cookie pop-ups, it is widely accepted that the current system is not working, as everyone ignores them and they have become an irritant. But they were there for a purpose—to ensure that the public were informed of the data being kept on them, so we do not believe that simply removing them is the answer. Similarly with nuisance calls, we want to ensure that the new rules are workable by clarifying the responsibilities of telecoms companies.
As I said at the outset, we regard the Bill as a disappointment that fails to harness the huge opportunities that data affords and to build in the appropriate safeguards. My noble friend Lord Knight put his finger on it well, at the front of the debate, when he said that we need a data protection Bill, but not this Bill.
The Government’s answer to a lack of clarity in so many areas of the Bill is to build in huge, sweeping, Henry VIII powers. When reviewing the legislation recently, we managed to count more than 40 proposed statutory instruments. That is an immense amount of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. We do not believe that this is the right way to legislate on a Bill that is so fundamental to people’s lives and the future of our economy. We want to bring these powers back into play so that they have the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
With this in mind, and taking into account all the concerns raised today, we look forward to a long and fruitful exchange with the Government over the coming months. This will be a Bill that challenges the Government.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely thank all of today’s speakers for their powerful and learned contributions to a fascinating and productive debate. I very much welcome the engagement in this legislation that has been shown from across the House and such a clear setting out, at this early stage, of the important issues and caveats.
As I said, the Bill reflects the extensive process of consultation that the Government have undertaken, with almost 3,000 responses to the document Data: A New Direction, and the support it enjoys from both the ICO and industry groups. The debate in which we have engaged is a demonstration of noble Lords’ desire to ensure that our data protection regime evolves and works more effectively, while maintaining the highest standards of data protection for all.
I will respond to as many of the questions and points raised as I can. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if, in the interests of time and clarity, I do not name every noble Lord who spoke to every issue. A number of noble Lords expressed the wish that the Government remain open to any and all conversations. Should I inadvertently fail to address any problem satisfactorily, I affirm that I am very willing to engage with all noble Lords throughout the Bill’s passage, recognising its importance and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, the opportunity it presents to do great good.
Many noble Lords raised concerns that the Bill does not go far enough to protect personal data rights. This is certainly not our intent. The fundamental data protection principles set out in the UK GDPR—as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope pointed out, they include lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, security and accountability—remain at the heart of the UK’s data protection regime. Certain kinds of data, such as health data, remain special categories to which extra protections rightly apply. Changes such as requiring a senior responsible individual, rather than a data protection officer, mean that organisations still need to be accountable for how they process personal data but will have more flexibility about how they manage the data protection risks within their organisations.
On other specific points raised on the data protection framework, I agree that the right of access is key to ensuring transparency in data processing. The proposals do not restrict the right of access for reasonable requests for information and keep reasonable requests free of charge. On the creation of the new recognised legitimate interests lawful grounds, evidence from our consultation indicated that some organisations worried about getting the balancing test wrong, while others said that the need to document the outcome of their assessment could slow down important processing activities.
To promote responsible data sharing in relation to a limited number of public interest tasks, the Bill acknowledges the importance of these activities, which include safeguarding, crime prevention and national security, responding to emergencies and democratic engagement, but data controllers should not be required to do a case-by-case balancing test.
On cookies, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to remove the need for data controllers to seek consent for other purposes in future, when the appropriate technologies to do so are readily available. The aim is to offer the user a clear, meaningful choice that can be made once and respected throughout their use of the internet. However, before any such powers are used, we will consult further to make sure that people are more effectively enabled to use different technology to set their online preferences.
On democratic engagement, extending the exemption allows a limited number of individuals, such as elected representatives and referendum campaigners, to process political opinions data without consent where this is necessary for their political activities. In a healthy democracy, it is not just registered political parties that may need to process political opinions data, and these amendments reflect that reality. This amendment does not remove existing rights. If people do not want their data processed for these purposes, they can ask the controller to stop doing so at any time. Before laying any regulations under this clause, the Government would need to consult the Information Commissioner and other interested parties, as well as gaining parliamentary approval.
I turn now to concerns raised by many about the independence of the regulator, the Information Commissioner. The ICO remains an independent regulator, accountable to Parliament, not the Government, in its delivery of data protection regulation. The Bill ensures it has the powers it needs to remain the guardian of people’s personal data. It can and does produce guidance on what it deems necessary. The Government welcome this and will work closely with it ahead of and throughout the implementation of this legislation.
New powers will also help to ensure that the Information Commissioner is able to access the evidence he needs to inform investigations and has the time needed to discover and respond to representations. This will result in more informed investigations and better outcomes. The commissioner will be able to require individuals to attend interviews only if he suspects that an organisation has failed to comply with or has committed an offence under data protection legislation. This power is based on existing comparable powers for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. A person is not required to answer a question if it would breach legal professional privilege or reveal evidence of an offence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, EU adequacy was mentioned by almost everybody, and concerns were raised that the Bill would impact our adequacy agreement with the EU. The Government believe that our reforms are compatible with maintaining our data adequacy decisions from the EU. While the Bill removes the more prescriptive elements of the GDPR, the UK will maintain its high standards of data protection and continue to have one of the closest regimes to the EU in the world after our reform. The test for EU adequacy set out by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cases relating to UK adequacy decisions requires essential equivalence to the level of protection under the GDPR. It does not require a third country to have exactly the same rules as the EU in order to be considered inadequate. Indeed, 14 countries have EU adequacy, including Japan, New Zealand and Canada. All of these nations pursue independent and often more divergent approaches to data protection.
Regarding our national security practices, in 2020 and 2021, the European Commission carried out a thorough assessment of the UK’s legislation and regulatory framework for personal data, including access by public authorities for national security purposes. It assessed that the UK provides an adequate level of data protection. We maintain an ongoing dialogue with the EU and have a positive, constructive relationship. We will continue to engage regularly with the EU to ensure our reforms are understood.
A great many noble Lords rightly commented on AI regulation, or the lack of it, in the Bill. Existing data protection legislation—the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018—regulate the development of AI systems and other technologies to the extent that there is personal data involved. This means that the ICO will continue to play an important role in applying the AI principles as they relate to matters of privacy and data protection. The Government’s view is that it would not be effective to regulate the use of AI in this context solely through the lens of data protection.
Article 22 of the UK GDPR is currently the primary piece of UK law setting out the requirements related to automated decision-making, and this Bill sets out the rights that data subjects have to be informed about significant decisions that are taken about them through solely automated means, to seek human review of those decisions and to have them corrected. This type of activity is, of course, increasingly AI-driven, and so it is important to align these reforms with the UK’s wider approach to AI governance that has been published in the White Paper developed by the Office for Artificial Intelligence. This includes ensuring terms such as “meaningful human involvement” remain up to date and relevant, and the Bill includes regulation-making powers to that effect. The White Paper on the regulation of AI commits to a principles-based approach that supports innovation, and we are considering how the framework will apply to the various actors in the AI development and deployment life cycle, with a particular focus on foundation models. We are analysing the views we heard during the White Paper consultation. We will publish a response imminently, and we do not want to get ahead of that process at this point.
I turn to the protection of children. Once again, I thank noble Lords across the House for their powerful comments on the importance of protecting children’s data, including in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. On the very serious issue of data preservation orders, the Government continue to make it clear—both in public, at the Dispatch Box, and in private discussions—that we are firmly on the side of the bereaved parents. We consider that we have acted in good faith, and we all want the same outcomes for these families struck by tragedy. We are focused on ensuring that no parent is put through the same ordeal as these families in the future.
I recognise the need to give families the answers they require and to ensure there is no gap in the law. Giving families the answers they need remains the Government’s motivation for the amendment in the other place; it is the reason we will ensure that the amendment is comprehensive and is viewed as such by the families. I reassure the House that the Government have heard and understand the concerns raised on this issue, and that is why the Secretary of State, along with Justice Ministers, will work with noble Lords ahead of Committee and carefully listen to their arguments on potential amendments.
I also hear the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on surveillance, police powers and police access to data. Abolishing the Surveillance Camera Commissioner will not reduce data protection. The role overlaps with other oversight bodies, which is inefficient and confusing for police and the public. The Bill addresses the duplication, which means that the ICO will continue to regulate data processing across all sectors, including policing. The aim is to improve effective independent oversight, which is key to public confidence. Simplification through consolidation improves consistency and guidance on oversight, makes the most of the available expertise, improves organisational resilience, and ends confusing and inefficient duplication.
The Government also have a responsibility to safeguard national security. The reports into events such as the Manchester Arena and Fishmongers’ Hall terrorist incidents have clearly noted that better joined-up working between the intelligence services and law enforcement supports that responsibility. This is why the Bill creates the power for designation notices to be issued, enabling joint controllerships between the intelligence services and law enforcement. The Secretary of State must consider the processing contained in the notice to be required for the purpose of safeguarding national security to grant it. This mirrors the high threshold for interference with the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which requires that such interference be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society.
Concerns were raised by, among others, the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Bassam, on the proportionality of the measure helping the Government to tackle both fraud and error. Despite taking positive steps to reduce these losses, the DWP remains reliant on powers derived from legislation that is in part over 20 years old. The DWP published the fraud plan in May 2022. It set out clearly a number of new powers that it would seek to secure when parliamentary time allowed. Tackling fraud and error in the DWP is a priority for the Government but parliamentary time is tight. In the time available, the DWP has prioritised our key third-party data-gathering measure which will help to tackle one of the largest causes of fraud and error in the welfare system. We remain committed to delivering all the legislation outlined in the DWP’s fraud plan when parliamentary time allows.
To develop and test these new proposals, the DWP has been working closely with the industry, which recognises the importance of modernising and strengthening these powers to enable us to better detect fraud and error in the benefit system. This includes collaboration on the practical design, implementation and delivery of this measure, including establishing a working group with banks and the financial industry. The DWP has also regularly engaged with UK finance as well as individual banks, building societies and fintechs during the development of this measure, and continues to do so. It is of course important that where personal data is involved there are appropriate checks and balances. Organisations have a right to appeal against the requirement to comply with a data notice issued by the DWP.
Through our appeal process, the Government would first seek to resolve all disputes by DWP internal review. If this failed, the appeal would be referred to the First-tier Tax Tribunal, as currently is used in similar circumstances by HMRC. The third-party data-gathering powers that the DWP is taking are only broad to the extent that this ensures that they can be future-proofed. This is because the nature of fraud has changed significantly in recent years and continues to change significantly. The current powers that the DWP has are not sufficient to tackle the new kinds of fraud that we are now seeing in the welfare system. We are including all benefits to ensure that benefits such as state pension retain low rates of fraud. The DWP will of course want to focus this measure on addressing areas with a significant fraud or error challenge. The DWP has set out in its fraud plan how it plans to focus the new powers, which in the first instance will be on fraud in universal credit.
I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for the attention paid to the department’s impact assessment, which sets out the details of this measure and all the others in the Bill. As he notes, it is substantive and thorough and was found to be such by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which gave it a green rating.
I hope that I have responded to most of the points raised by noble Lords today. I look forward to continuing to discuss these and other items raised.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I would like some clarification. The Minister in the other place said:
“I agree, to the extent that levels of fraud in state pensions being currently nearly zero, the power is not needed in that case. However, the Government wish to retain an option should the position change in the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/23; col. 912.]
Can the noble Viscount explain why the Government still want to focus on recipients of state pension given that there is virtually no fraud? That is about 12.6 million people, so why?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Although proportionately fraud in the state pension is very low, it is still there. That will not be the initial focus, but the purpose is to future-proof the legislation rather than to have to keep coming back to your Lordships’ House.
Let me once again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and engagement. I look forward to further and more detailed debates on these matters and more besides in Committee. I recognise that there are strong views and it is a wide-ranging Bill, so there will be a lot of meat in our sandwich.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on his perfectly judged maiden speech. I thoroughly enjoyed his description of his background and his valuable contributions on the Bill, and I welcome him to this House.
Finally, on a lighter note, I take this opportunity to wish all noble Lords—both those who have spoken in this debate and others—a very happy Christmas and a productive new year, during which I very much look forward to working with them on the Bill.
Viscount Camrose
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clause 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 14, Schedule 3, Clauses 15 to 24, Schedule 4, Clause 25, Schedules 5 to 7, Clauses 26 to 46, Schedule 8, Clauses 47 to 51, Schedule 9, Clauses 52 to 117, Schedule 10, Clauses 118 to 128, Schedule 11, Clauses 129 to 137, Schedule 12, Clause 138, Schedule 13, Clauses 139 to 142, Schedule 14, Clause 143, Schedule 15, Clauses 144 to 157, Title.
Israel and Gaza
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, as an Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place today, my colleague there gave the following response:
“The whole House will be gravely concerned about the desperate situation in Gaza. It cannot continue and we are deploying all our diplomatic resources, including at the United Nations, to help find a viable solution.
The scale of civilian deaths and displacement in Gaza is shocking. I was particularly disturbed to hear about the situation of civilians trapped in the Holy Family Church complex in Gaza City, the lack of water and food, and reports of sniper fire causing civilian deaths inside the complex. Although Israel has the right to defend itself against terror, restore its security and bring the hostages home, it must abide by international law and take all possible measures to protect civilians.
No one wants to see this conflict go on a moment longer than necessary; we recognise the sheer scale of the suffering and are appalled at the impacts on civilians. What we urgently need are more humanitarian pauses to get all the hostages out and life-saving aid in. We welcome the recent opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing to help achieve this, but it is not enough. Our immediate priorities are to secure the release of British hostages, to show solidarity with Israel in defending itself against Hamas while complying with international humanitarian law, and to call for such pauses—both at the UN and directly with Israel—to ensure that emergency aid can be distributed in Gaza, including fuel, water and medicine.
The Foreign Secretary will discuss the situation in Gaza with regional leaders this week in his visit to Egypt and Jordan. The Government have recently announced an extra £30 million of British aid, tripling the UK’s aid budget for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year. To date, we have delivered 74 tonnes of aid, but there is still more to do: casualty numbers are far too high and we are calling on Hamas to release each and every kidnapped hostage. We are also actively exploring other routes for aid into Gaza, including maritime options.
Of course, as both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have said, ultimately this must end. We of course want to see an end to the fighting, but this must be a sustainable ceasefire, meaning that Hamas must stop launching rockets into Israel and release the hostages. Over 130 hostages are still unaccounted for. They must be released immediately and returned to their families. To achieve long-term peace in the Middle East, a viable two-state solution is needed. Leaving Hamas in power in Gaza would be a permanent roadblock on the path to this. No one can be expected to live along- side a terrorist organisation committed to its destruction and dedicated to repeating those attacks”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe worsens in Gaza, it is vital that the United Kingdom helps to build the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire—and that includes our work on the United Nations Security Council. I know that Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, have been working hard to find a text which can be agreed on that can lead to a cessation of violence and the release of hostages. While the outcome of the Security Council deliberations will not be known until later today, the mobilising of humanitarian support must be stepped up. Andrew Mitchell said in the other place that we will increase support for UNRWA directly into Gaza which, he said, now has US backing. Can the Minister give us more details of this and of how we are working with all UN agencies to get aid into Gaza?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He is right that things are at a crucial stage at the Security Council. We are expecting a vote at approximately 5 pm our time and are working really hard to make sure that we have a text that can be agreed on. It is involving all the diplomatic skills we have at hand. We will make sure that we keep the House informed on the progress of that and will explain the text we have achieved.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise humanitarian support. Some £10 million to support Palestinian refugees has been committed at the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. In addition, £150 million has been committed to support vulnerable Syrians and £70 million has been contributed to the UNHCR. A whole range of different schemes have been adopted in the region, but we have tripled our particular support to those in Gaza to make sure that we are supporting them. The humanitarian aid we want to see delivered has a number of potential routes in. One, which I mentioned earlier, was a maritime option, but that of course requires the agreement of both Israel and Hamas. We are also investigating a cross-land route via Jordan through Israel through to the Kerem Shalom crossing. These are complicated issues to negotiate, and we will continue to keep the House informed on our progress.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we seem to be facing something of a moving target. When the Minister of State made the response in another place, the suggestion was that the UN vote was expected at 3 pm our time. My honourable friend Layla Moran, in asking her supplementary in the other place, noted that the Government
“talk now of a sustainable ceasefire”,
and asked whether they will demand “an immediate bilateral ceasefire”. It is not clear that the Minister of State in the other place gave a direct answer to that, so I wonder whether the Minister is able to do so and whether he can tell us whether the naval support being sent will be able to support ships getting through the Red Sea and keep trade lines open as well.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am mindful that the noble Baroness’s friend in the other place has family in the Holy Family church in Gaza. We are very keen to make sure that we are supporting both getting aid to people like that but also to make sure that we are holding Israel to the very clear statement of President Herzog, who said that:
“The State of Israel and the IDF continue to act in a humanitarian manner and in accordance with international law”.
The eyes of the world are on this. We were all appalled by what happened on 7 October; Many Members of this House have seen the footage of those terrible attacks, and absolutely accept the right of Israel to defend itself. But we want to get aid in and make sure that Israel is operating in accordance with humanitarian law. The sustainable ceasefire that we are talking about, which my colleague the Foreign Secretary and his opposite number in Germany have put together, is about stopping the launching of rockets, releasing the hostages, and moving to that key two-state solution. That is what “sustainable” means in this context.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a past chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council, and ask my noble friend for clarification. The Permanent Representative to the UN, Dame Barbara Woodward, suggested that the reason the UK abstained at the recent vote in New York was because the Motion did not condemn Hamas. Can the Minister be very clear—had it condemned Hamas, would the United Kingdom have actually voted for the resolution? Secondly, when you have the spokesman for the Israeli Government, the Ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, ruling out ever having a two-state solution, do we not need to finally admit that the two-state solution is over, and we need to be a little more creative and forward-leaning in working out where we go from here?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hope that we are being as creative, forward-leaning and dextrous in our diplomacy. Our permanent representative to the UN is working on the text which, we believe, must make some reference to the atrocity of 7 October but also—it is possible to hold two thoughts in our head at the same time—we want to make sure that aid is getting in and that we have a political solution. We know that this conflict cannot continue, and certainly not in its current form, and we want to see an end to it.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the reason civilians in Gaza are at risk is because Hamas hides its weapons in densely packed residential areas and in hospitals and schools. What the atrocities on 7 October show, which Hamas has promised to repeat, is that there is no prospect of the peace process we all want to see with Islamist terrorists committed not just to killing every Israeli but to the murder of Jews worldwide. This is why the UK Government should be doing all they can to support Israel’s campaign to deal with Hamas and free the hostages.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, that is what we are seeking to do. The reports of weapons being found in child incubators in hospitals are appalling, if true. They should be condemned by everybody, and we should be working to secure a lasting peace in this area. I understand the noble Lord’s frustration; in order for this to happen we have to get both sides to move, and we are trying to use all the diplomatic levers at our disposal to achieve that.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments so far. I want to raise two specific incidents with His Majesty’s Government that are of particular concern to these Benches.
News arrived overnight of the actions of the Israel Defense Forces in destroying the entrance wall of the Anglican Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza City, closing that facility, detaining most of its staff and leaving a tank on the rubble. The second incident relates to comments made by the deputy mayor of Jerusalem on LBC radio this morning, where she was questioned about a sniper attack on two Christian women in the compound of the Holy Family Church. She said that there were no Christians or churches in Gaza and that they have been “driven out by Hamas”. There remains a small, yet highly visible, Christian community in Gaza, which is very notably engaged in the provision of Gaza’s healthcare facilities.
While I recognise the right of Israel to pursue its legitimate military objectives, I ask the Minister to ensure that His Majesty’s Government make clear to the Government of Israel that the targeting of religious buildings, their people and the healthcare facilities they provide to the community is unacceptable, and that the Church in this country expects the prompt release of medical staff detained from the Al-Ahli hospital.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not have time to go into the details of the two incidents that the right reverend Prelate raises, but our information is that there were no Hamas fighters in or around the Holy Family compound and that the people who work and live there are nuns and other employees, or people who work with them. We want to make sure that they are protected and given all the protection one has a right to require for such people in a conflict situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, may I press my noble friend on the possibility of delivering humanitarian aid through maritime routes? Will he also look at the conflict in the Red Sea that is now impacting on our own merchant shipping?
Lord Benyon (Con)
RFA “Lyme Bay” is off Cyprus, ready to go, and will require, as I said, the agreement of both sides in the conflict for it to make a maritime landing of aid—I cannot say more on that.
On the other question, which I think I did not answer the noble Baroness about, relating to the situation in the Red Sea, we are working with our allies. The United States Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, has put together a plan, which we are part of, to ensure that international shipping will continue to be able to head through the Strait of Hormuz. It is an absolutely vital seaway for the security of the region and for the trade routes throughout the world, and we are treating that as an absolute priority.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
With the agreement of the House, I will repeat a Statement made yesterday in the other place by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, 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 honourable friend the Member for Charnwood, 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 honourable Member for Kingston upon Hull North 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 honourable friend the Member for Horsham, 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”.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for reading the Statement out this afternoon, and we very much welcome it.
Someone dies every four days as a result of this scandal. Time is passing. Each week, more families are left to grieve. The campaign led by victims, by their families and, in Parliament, by Diana Johnson, and the vote in the other place to amend the Victims and Prisoners Bill, forcing the Government to establish a body to administer compensation in anticipation of the final report of the inquiry, are no doubt focusing Ministers’ minds. I had hoped that the Statement that the Minister helpfully read out would provide some assurance that the Government are proceeding with this work. Can the Minister clarify what they are doing in anticipation of the completion of the passage of the victims Bill to comply with its new Clause 40?
It is clearly the will of Parliament that the Government make progress quickly. They could, for example, set about appointing a chair and members of the compensation awarding body. They could begin conversations with devolved Governments about how to work together to ensure fairness across the United Kingdom. Much could be done ahead of the final report. Can the Minister inform the House when these steps will happen? We are pleased to hear that the Government are establishing specialist psychological support, but can she explain why this will not be available until next summer?
We pay tribute to the bravery and determination of the victims of this scandal and their families. These Benches would gladly work on a cross-party basis to ensure that a scheme can be agreed and implemented as soon as possible to provide certainty to those infected and affected.
The Minister said that the Government are appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations in the new year. It is not clear from the Statement what this will involve or what technical considerations are meant. Can the Minister elaborate? Is it the Government’s view that primary legislation will be needed to establish the body to administer the compensation? If so, this could also be done in January, given the cross-party support that exists. When do they plan to introduce any necessary legislation?
There is no need to wait for the victims Bill to pass, given the clarity of the words of the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice that the Government would
“put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; cols. 136-37.]
In the light of this Statement, when does the Minister anticipate that payments can start to be made?
We cannot undo what has happened. We cannot bring people back, but we can, through a fair compensation scheme, recognise the wrong that has been done to so many families and individuals. We can provide the financial support that is due. But I reiterate that we do not have the luxury of time. We have a moral duty to act, which the Government accept, and Parliament has demanded. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I would like to pick up from where the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, left off. We need to occasionally remind ourselves of the history of this. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and thank the various campaign groups that continue to persevere for justice and compensation and to ensure that we are kept informed about the current situation.
I particularly thank Colette Wintle and Carol Grayson for their briefing and their amazing campaigning over the years. They reminded us that the history of this started in 1991 with the HIV litigation, when the Conservative Government blocked compensation. In 2003, the Skipton Fund was set up, but that was blocked by the Labour Government. In 2009 and 2010 there were other incidents that were also blocked by that Government. In 2012, the coalition Government also blocked compensation, delaying things for a further decade. This year, given that Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report made it absolutely clear that compensation should be set up and run from now, it is extraordinary to have a three-page Statement, in which the first page says all the right things but the second and third pages then put it into the long grass.
It is good news about Clause 40 in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House yesterday and, had we heard the details of the Statement before that, some of us might have changed our speeches. It is almost as if Ministers have not yet seen Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation on 5 April. To remind your Lordships’ House, he said:
“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year”.
The Statement says that the Government will work through everything before starting the scheme. Can the Minister say on what grounds they are going specifically against Sir Brian’s recommendation that the scheme should start immediately? Time is not on the side of the victims or their families.
From these Benches, we too welcome the proposals for a bespoke psychological service for people infected by and affected by the infected blood products. But can I ask the Minister if there is new funding for this? There has to be funding outside the existing mental health budgets, which are severely under strain. If there is not, it will just put further pressure on an overwhelmed service and lead to further distress for people who believe that it will be available to help them when it is not. Even worse, others who have been waiting years for urgent mental health services will find that they cannot get them.
It is important because, as the Factor 8 scandal campaign has said, in a recent case of a young man whose father, mother and sister all died of AIDS when he was three years old, he has received nothing. He gets no ongoing support and struggles deeply with his mental health. Factor 8 says that it is “unimaginable” that his case is not
“described as ‘one of those most severely impacted’”.
There is also reference to setting up a group of experts. Who is appointing these experts? It would be normal for the chair of the compensation panel to choose their experts. There would usually be two panels —one would be medical advisers and one would be legal advisers. There is, of course, the important element of making sure that there is the voice of the people affected. Can the Minister say whether this is being done by the Government in advance of the panel being set up?
It would really good if we could have some speeding up of this process. There is no time, as everyone has said—but we have been saying this for close to 30 years, and it needs to be actioned now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments about cross-party support because, after all, this dreadful scandal dates back, I think, 40 years and has involved many different Governments. She is also right that we have to recognise what has gone before us and do the right thing. It has been an awful scandal and, even more, it has left a stigma—particularly in the days before HIV and AIDS were properly understood—on all those involved. She is right to say that the amendment to the victims Bill has helped to focus minds on this issue.
Obviously, the Government recognise the strength of feeling across the House and the importance of what this amendment seeks to achieve. We are working through the implications as drafted and considering the question of primary legislation and, having this amendment, what is the right vehicle.
As I said, the inquiry’s final report is expected in March 2024. There was, I suppose, a small ray of light in the last day or two, as the inquiry said it would announce the date of its report on 17 January. The Government have already made it clear that, within 25 sitting days following the publication of that report, we will provide a full response to Parliament with an Oral Statement on the next steps. That gives us a better timetable than we have had before. I understand, of course, the points made about speed, and I look forward to being able to fill in on them.
I reiterate the news about the bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products and the appointment—I hope, imminently —of clinical leader and social care experts. The role of social care experts will be to advise on technical issues that require a high level of relevant knowledge in order to make informed choices in responding to the inquiry’s eventual recommendations on compensation—things such as tariff schedules. These experts will be independent and will be appointed solely to advise on technical issues. Our feeling is that it is right to get on and make those appointments: the Minister for the Cabinet Office was very clear about that. That probably means that it is not possible to do the chair and the experts at the same time. He made it clear that that process was ongoing, would be communicated early in the new year and that he was working, as it were, right over Christmas on this important issue.
In relation to the psychological support service in England, I understand the concerns that the service cannot go live until early summer 2024. The reason for that is that we need time to recruit suitably experienced and qualified staff and for all the necessary arrangements to be made for them to start seeing patients. What is good about the scheme is that access is anticipated to be primarily by people referring themselves. There may be onward referrals from GPs and hospitals, but people will not be reliant on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was right to run through the history of this again and remind us of that and of individual cases. I am the process of reading Caroline Wheeler’s book on this blood scandal in preparation for today and have been shocked by the individual cases. I commend that, and think it has been influential in this whole matter. We have made a Statement because we promised to do one before Christmas and, as I have said, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is working relentlessly on moving these schemes forward so that we are in the best possible stage of readiness for the final report when it emerges.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, as a former Member of Parliament, and like many other former MPs in this House, I had constituents affected by this awful condition. I will ask my noble friend a point of clarification. In the original Statement, 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”.
However, on certain occasions in the Minister’s responses in the other place, he referred only to those who were infected by this blood. For absolute clarity, is it the Government’s intention to compensate those both affected and infected?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lancaster for his comments. Of course, many people who had constituencies had similar experiences to him, including Mr Glen himself. The interim compensation scheme that we set in train last October paid out £400 million in interim compensation to a combination of infected people and their bereaved partners if they were registered on the scheme. That gives some understanding of the way we look at this—or at least how we did then —but, obviously, the report is much more wide ranging. We were able to deliver payments quickly then because of the clear parameters of eligibility. As my noble friend suggests, the final report will no doubt be much broader, which is one of the reasons why we have to do so much more work on the complexities involved.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by the Minister and pay tribute to the campaigners who have campaigned for nearly four decades. There is an urgency to this issue: as we heard, there is a death every four days, and the families and the victims need an explanation. Can the Minister explain why it has taken Governments so long to accept the moral case for compensation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a question for many previous Governments. I can speculate, as can the noble Lord, but this Government have accepted the moral case. That has implications, and we have made interim payments. This is not a difficult matter; I always go back to the need to give the victims the justice they deserve and our intention to do that.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
The Government’s Statement on their response to the Infected Blood Inquiry is a deep disappointment—that is an understatement. The Commons Minister said, and our Minister repeated it—I in no way criticise our Minister for this; I respect her greatly—that the
“distress and trauma that each individual has faced as a result of this tragedy is unimaginable”.
Yet the Minister went on to do absolutely nothing about it, other than establish a psychological service 40 years on. In my view, all this does is recognise the extraordinary depth of the damage done to these people—nothing more.
The Government have had the full and final recommendations on compensation and redress from the inquiry since April 2023, when it said that the compensation scheme should be set up and work should begin in 2023—of course, the Government ignored this. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned the Government appointing legal and clinical experts to advise them further on the operation of the compensation scheme, when the inquiry made it very clear that the chair of the arm’s-length body should make those appointments.
As president of the Haemophilia Society, I remind the House of the sheer numbers of people affected in this appalling way by those administrative errors. Over 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were treated with contaminated blood products brought over from the United States that were taken from prisoners, drug addicts and others. This is a shocking history, and it is surely time that all those directly or indirectly affected should be compensated fully and immediately.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am sorry for the disappointment that the noble Baroness found it necessary to express. I cannot help sharing it, to some extent. I thank her for reminding us of the numbers involved, which may be even more than she talked about. We do not exactly know, which is one of reasons why we are not in a position to do the necessary moving forward.
I reiterate the point made on previous occasions when we have discussed this: the lack of a timetable is very worrying to us all. As I explained, we will have a firm date for the final report very shortly, by 17 January. We expect the report in March, and within 25 sitting days we will provide a proper response to Parliament, with an Oral Statement on next steps. We have to move forward, as well as being disappointed and complaining about the slowness of this. This is a major scandal and we are, as a Government, trying to move forward and sort it out.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, as a former Health Minister who was called to give evidence at the inquiry, I know how thoroughly Sir Brian Langstaff conducted it. That is why it has gone on for so long— I think over a year longer than originally intended. I therefore welcome the steps the Government outlined in the Statement and the action they propose to take immediately. However, as has already been said on all sides, it is not only the tragedy of the case but the length of time which makes a final settlement so urgent.
Most of the supplementary questions I planned to ask have already been asked, about interim payments and the composition of the new clinical, legal and social care expert committee, which is to advise the Cabinet Office. I understand that similar supplies of infected blood went to other countries in Europe and around the world. How have they dealt with it, and to what extent have we been guided by their examples?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for her question. In another life, she and I worked together on food safety and health issues. I know how much she knows about these issues, and there are many difficulties and tragedies in these areas.
I will write to my noble friend with an answer on the international practice. I am reading the Caroline Wheeler book, which talks about some of this. We may not have done as well as we could have done, and we need to learn from that for the future. The noble Baroness is right to ask about what they did. I know that some countries had similar problems but others did not. We should learn from that for the future.
Tackling Spiking
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday’s Statement on tackling spiking was welcome. It said that 5,000 cases of spiking had been reported last year—as it very realistically said, this is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. As it also said, spiking is not just the spiking of drinks but by needles and sometimes of food. It is a prevalent problem that needs tackling.
The danger is to everybody, but it is particularly to young women in nightclubs and bars. There is very often a sexual motive to those who perpetrate spiking. The other point the Statement made, which is worth saying, is that it is often a trigger to secondary offending as a result of the spiking itself.
I have spoken to a number of young people about this and every one of them knows about spiking. They either know it through their own experience or that of close personal friends. Everybody who I have spoken to says it is an issue for undergraduates at universities, for example. They have all got their story to tell about spiking.
As a magistrate, I have dealt with spiking a few times over the last few years. However, on reflection, I have mainly dealt with cases where it is not the perpetrator who is in front of me in the court, but a defendant who claims their alleged criminal activity is because of the spiking. That is something for the court to try and disentangle, but from my own experience that is what I have actually seen in court. It must be quite difficult to bring these cases to court.
The other point worth making, which I am sure the noble Lord will be well aware of, is that the vast majority of young people who have experienced this do not report it to the police. They do that for a variety of reasons, but that is a common thread from what they have said to me.
In the Statement, the Government said that they are going to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that will modernise the language of the Offences against the Person Act 1861—clearly, that is welcome—and that there will be additional funding, which will be provided to the police to run spiking intensification weeks. The other undertaking within the statement is that the Security Industry Authority, the regulator of the UK’s private security industry, has committed to introducing spiking training for door supervisors as part of its existing licence-linked qualifications. One question for the Minister is: what responsibilities do nightclub owners have to try and stamp out spiking from their premises?
A further commitment of the Government is that they will support the police rolling out their spiking reporting and advice tool to improve the quality of data. We of course welcome these announcements as far as they go, but they are long overdue. I have had correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she was a Home Office Minister, on exactly this matter, so I know that the Government are seized of the issue. Can the Minister say something about how much longer he expects it to be before the legislative changes which may be proposed are made, and how much longer it will be before any funding support which may be provided to the police will be made and get off the ground?
I conclude on a slightly different note. I am very conscious of the limits of changing the law. Of course, we must change the law to make sure there is adequate punishment and to recognise spiking in its many manifestations, but really, the best defence is information. As I said, young people are aware of this but are not necessarily aware of the best ways of defending themselves against spiking. It may be the responsibility of universities, and maybe also of police forces, but also of the Government to make sure that the right information is made available to young people to try to reduce this crime.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for this Statement about understanding and tackling spiking, and indeed for the document which accompanies it. It is good that the Government are making a series of proposals. If I pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, finished, on the change of the law, that is a useful clarification because if the law—even though it is there—is not being used by the criminal justice system, it is failing. I hope we will all be able to get behind that amendment when it comes through in the Criminal Justice Bill.
When I read the report, my heart sank. There are some good points, and I will come on to those in a minute. However, there is very little emphasis on tackling the prevalence of behaviour by perpetrators. There is a mention at the very end of the recommendations in the document that prevalence will be part of trying to highlight spiking, including
“increased arrests, detections, and prevention activity taking place”.
However, that prevention activity is unlikely to change the mindset of a young man—it is usually a young man—going out with some drugs that he wishes to use to spike somebody’s drink or even to use a needle. It always worries me that victims are the ones who need to read up and learn about how they can best protect themselves, while nothing is done to attempt to change the culture of the behaviour of the perpetrator. It seems to me that that is a big issue. Can the Minister say what is planned on this? For example, are there advertising schemes? We must get the perpetrators to think that it is absolutely unacceptable even to think about it—but I am struggling to see that.
Having been a health spokesperson, I am interested in the research into the capability of existing test kits. I know that most of the current test kits involve using a urine sample, which is impractical at the time: you can find out only afterwards if you have one of those tests. If it is the equivalent of the lateral flow test that was developed during the Covid pandemic, it would be enormously useful—but 150,000 will not go very far. I note the wording in the document is very careful in talking about the plan “to begin research”, but we ought to put some urgency on this. If there are 5,000 cases a year that we are aware of, they are putting a considerable burden on not only the victims but the entire criminal justice system. It seems that this should be a bigger priority for prevention.
My final point is on the training programme. Noble Lords will know that I go on and on about training programmes in relation to victims and the criminal justice system. They are really helpful for upskilling staff in the night-time economy. I declare an interest that one of my children works in the night-time industry, as a security guard. I know that she would welcome some training to accompany the other training that she has on safeguarding and other matters; it would be extremely helpful. It would be useful for particular sectors that work very much with young people—universities and further education providers—as well as the night-time industry.
My real concern is that we need to get to the people who think that it is acceptable to perpetrate this crime. I do not see any of that in the Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. They are right: everybody deserves to feel safe when they are out enjoying Britain’s thriving night scene, especially over the festive period, when everyone’s social calendar gets a little busier.
The statutory report on spiking has been laid in Parliament and published on GOV.UK. As has been noted, spiking is already illegal, but we have listened and will change the law to make sure that spiking, as it manifests itself in the modern world and in all its forms, is clearly and comprehensively reflected in legislation. We hope that this will encourage more victims to come forward and report this often-underreported crime, which will then send a clear message that spiking will not be tolerated and that offenders can expect to face justice.
We have announced a package of new measures to tackle spiking, which, as all noble Lords will be aware, is an abhorrent crime and undermines the public’s right to feel safe in their communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, noted, that particularly applies to women and girls. The measures range from equipping the police to intensify their proactive interventions to prevent offences, to empowering venue staff to respond, protect victims and collect vital evidence, as well as the rollout of a reporting and advice tool for spiking incidents, including anonymous reporting.
I will get to the specific questions asked of me soon, but it might be of interest to noble Lords to know that, between May 2022 and April 2023, the police received 6,732 reports of spiking, including 957 reports of needle spiking, as was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. On average, the police receive a total of 561 spiking reports a month, which includes through needles, drinks and other forms. The majority of those come from females who believe that their drinks have been spiked, although spiking can and does affect anybody.
The measures that we are taking, which are non-legislative, are as follows. We are providing funding for the research into the capability of existing spiking testing kits, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to, and the potential development of new kits for venues and the police to detect whether someone’s drink has been spiked in real time. That is not as straight- forward as it sounds. There are a lot of drugs that can be detected, many of which are perfectly legitimate—including quinine, which of course comes in tonic. That makes life a little complicated when we are looking at this space, but the work is being done and funded.
There will be funding to train night-time venue staff to promote better detection of possible spiking incidents, as well as training in supporting and collecting evidence. We are working with the Security Industry Authority on its commitment to introduce spiking training to its existing licence-linked qualifications, which all applicants for DS licences have to undergo. We are working with the police on the national rollout of the online reporting tool for spiking, which allows individuals to report incidents quickly, easily and, if they wish, anonymously. We are introducing the intensification weeks, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby; police forces will conduct additional work on spiking, similar to current initiatives for county lines drug trafficking and knife crime. We are supporting the higher education regulator, the Office for Students, in the delivery of any requirements for English higher education providers to prevent and address various offences, including spiking. The publication of new information and support pages will set out organisations’ roles and responsibilities in tackling spiking, as well as updating the statutory guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act 2003.
On specific questions, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked what measures are in place to deal with premises whose irresponsible management, for example, might make it easier for offences such as spiking to take place. If there are concerns about how a licensed venue is being run, the police have the power under Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds. There is also an expedited review process that allows licensing authorities to alter the licensing conditions granted to premises.
Mandating to carry out searches of nightclubs and so on is not quick or simple, but will require considerable consultation and potentially primary legislation.
On whether a new spiking offence would make it easier to collect data, for example, which the noble Lord mentioned, we have worked closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which established Operation Leicester to co-ordinate the national policing response to the crime. This has included ensuring that there is co-ordination between all 43 forces in England and Wales to centrally track incidents of spiking to gain a better understanding of the scale of the problem. That has demonstrated that we do not need legislation to ensure the consistency of recording and gain data insights from crime recording. Using the established network of crime registrars to develop central procedures can help to improve data capture more quickly when compared with the lengthy process involved in introducing and training law enforcement on the new offence. That is important work, and it is ongoing.
On timelines, we are in the early stages of developing the package. It is important that we do not overpromise and then underdeliver, but we will ensure that Parliament is well apprised of progress against these measures. The updated guidance for Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 was published yesterday. The spiking information and support pages will be published this week, ahead of Christmas, and both are available on GOV.UK.
As of 14 December, the police’s spiking reporting and advice service has been rolled out to 20 police forces across England and Wales; it will be rolled out to the remaining 23 in due course. The vehicle for refreshing the legislation and the language around the legislation, as referred to in the Statement, is the Criminal Justice Bill, which is in Committee in the other place and will be with us at some point in the new year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a very good point about Christmas—everybody deserves to feel safe when they are out and about at this time of year. We recognise that it will take some time for these legislative and non-legislative measures to take effect, but there are obviously steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of spiking. It is encouraging to hear from the noble Lord that the young people he has spoken to are all aware that this is a problem. Young people need to watch out for friends and make sure they look after each other; never leave their drinks unattended; be cautious if they are given or bought a drink and consider accepting a drink only from people they know and trust; be wary of people reaching over their drinks; and alert staff and police immediately if they see anyone acting suspiciously around their drink or someone else’s. If they or a friend feel unwell, they should seek help from staff or call an ambulance immediately. These things are necessary; we should not have to say them, but they bear repeating.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me what the Government plan to do to develop our understanding of the motivations of the perpetrators. A literature review has been carried out by a team from the National Crime Agency and the University of Birmingham, as part of the statutory report on spiking. It concluded that it is hard to determine the actual levels of spiking from the existing literature, so we are considering what more we can do to shed light on this as we move forward with the recent measures announced as part of the report’s publication. I hear what the noble Baroness says, and there is more to be said on that in due course.
I have already referred to the testing kits, to some extent. We are not committing to producing new spiking testing kits, but we are carrying out research into the capability of existing kits. First we have to identify whether they meet police requirements or whether something new is needed to help venues and police detect, in real time, whether a drink has been spiked. At this stage, it remains our position that the only reliable testing method that can detect the range of potential substances used in spiking and that can later be used in court is the rapid urine-testing capability established by the police. Obviously, that is not ideal and has to be done in a very short space of time. I go back to this point: we strongly encourage anyone who believes that they or someone around them has been spiked to contact the police as soon as possible, so that samples can be taken for testing.
As I have said, the majority of samples—51%—contain a drug of no concern or no drug at all. A drug of no concern is one that does not have a rapid sedative effect or cause confusion to a victim. The most common are paracetamol and quinine, which illustrates the difficulty with this particular kit.
I think I have covered all the questions that were asked of me. I appreciate the House’s welcome for these measures, and we look forward to delivering on them in the new year.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the list of measures, on which we have now heard from the Minister, but point out that spiking affects people of all ages, and men as well as women. There was excellent coverage on “Channel 4 News” yesterday evening of a young man who was spiked anonymously and then contracted HIV. Of course, this happens not only in pubs, clubs and anonymously but in dating. In that respect, one must remember the murders by Stephen Port. I pay tribute to the sisters Donna and Jenny for getting justice for those who were subsequently murdered. What further measures can the Government take to address the institutional attitudes, often homophobia and biphobia, that prevent the proper investigation of spiking when it occurs not only in licensed premises but in prearranged dating?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important and welcome point. It is a fact that young men are less likely to record incidents of this sort of thing, for what reason I do not know, although I imagine that embarrassment and shame probably play a major part. Education has to be a factor in this, and we have to make it clear that, if you suspect that you have been a victim of spiking, it is necessary to get tested as soon as you can.
We are dealing with the culture behind some of these aspects in a much broader context. The Angiolini inquiry, which is looking into various incidents that have happened within the police over the last two years, will deliver its results soon. I hope that they go a considerable way to improving some of the cultural failings that have perhaps led to these things.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, given that the data collected by the NSPCC found that student was the highest-recorded occupation of those who had been spiked, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government should work with universities and colleges to offer support for students and raise awareness about attending events in non-licensed private premises, such as student accommodation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is absolutely correct, of course. As I have already said, we all have a part to play in tackling spiking and it is vital that we do this collaboratively. The Government and law enforcement have engaged with the sector, both through the Department for Education’s spiking working group, which is chaired by Professor Lisa Roberts, the vice-chancellor of the University of Exeter, and as part of a range of freshers-related communications activity carried out this year and last. As part of its most recent phase, the Government’s behaviour-change campaign “Enough” has partnered with more than 30 universities in the UK and produced a range of bespoke online and offline communications assets, which look to speak directly to student and university scenarios. Spiking assets form part of this package of work.
I could go on, but I completely agree with my noble friend and there will be a lot more to say on this. A consultation is ongoing with the Office for Students, which is due to deliver its report at the beginning of next year. We will have more to say then.
Global Combat Air Programme Treaty
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my entry in the register of interests, including my role as an honorary officer of the Royal Navy.
I had the privilege of leading the first debate in the other place on the need for a new fast-jet work stream for a post-Typhoon world. That debate, and the cross-party campaign, laid the foundation for the Tempest programme and, in turn, the announcement of this treaty and GCAP. So it should be no surprise that I am personally invested in the development of a sixth-generation British fighter jet. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the development of the trination treaty and confirmation that the GCAP programme will be developed with Italy and Japan.
As with AUKUS, this alliance demonstrates our commitment to global long-term security in both Europe and the North Atlantic, as well as in the Indo-Pacific. It sends a clear message to those nation states that may wish us ill. With our allies, we can and will invest in our collective defence as a deterrent to hostile actors, because there is nothing more important than global stability and security.
There have been moments this year when the world has felt anything but stable. Therefore, in a more complex strategic environment, it is increasingly apparent that only by working with our closest allies will we be able to guarantee our global reach. However, given the scope of the project and the current challenges in the department’s procurement budget, as outlined by the National Audit Office only a fortnight ago, I have some questions for the Minister.
In June, the defence Command Paper reaffirmed that the UK would spend £2 billion on this project out to 2025. Given that the development phase will begin in 2025, can the Minister confirm what funding has been made available for GCAP in the defence budget for 2025 and 2026? The procurement budget currently has a £17 billion black hole. Can the Minister confirm that this vital additional investment in GCAP will not lead to further cuts of the F-35B procurement budget? The Minister will be aware that our carrier strike capability is at the heart of our defence planning, and we cannot afford to put it at risk by failing to procure enough airframes.
We are very lucky to have a vibrant and engaged defence industrial base in the UK. However, it is dependent on the development, manufacture and export of new technologies. As GCAP is to be headquartered here, can the Minister confirm what proportion of the workshare for GCAP will be based in the UK, so we can support British business and workers? Finally, can the Minister confirm within what scope the treaty allows us to work with other allies, both at secondary level and as primary partners?
As this is my last contribution of 2023, I take the opportunity to wish the noble Earl and all Members of your Lordships’ House—as well as our wonderful staff—a lovely break and a joyous, happy and electorally successful 2024.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, starting where the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, left off, I think the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and I have the dubious distinction of being the last two people standing this afternoon, because we have the next two items of business as well. I am not quite ready to wish everyone happy recess, happy Christmas, happy holidays or anything else, and I am afraid I am going to ask the noble Earl a few more questions. In many ways, they are in a similar vein to those of the noble Baroness, except that I cannot take credit for any activities in the other place, never having served there.
From these Benches we welcome this treaty and the commitment, which is very clear, to the Global Combat Air Programme. I would be interested to hear, in addition to the answers that the Minister will give to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, a few more specifics about what this programme is going to mean in practice for the United Kingdom and for our wider relations with NATO and our other security partners. Clearly, one of the other partners in this trilateral arrangement is Italy. Japan is obviously an ally, and one with which we have strong bilateral relations, but how will this programme relate to our commitments within NATO? Is it enabling the United Kingdom and Italy to play a greater role, strengthening our positioning in NATO? The original Statement in the other place seemed to suggest that this is really about demonstrating our commitment not just to the Indo-Pacific but to the Euro-Atlantic area. I should like to hear a little more about the strategic thinking behind this.
Like the noble Baroness, I want to press the Minister a little more on the financial arrangements. We are in an unprecedented situation, with the present conflicts in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza, and with further problems in the straits in the Red Sea—that is associated with the situation in Israel and Gaza but could potentially become even more difficult for our trading relations, and beyond that there are further ramifications for our naval commitments. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made about this programme, alongside the carrier strike group and other commitments that we need to be thinking about?
I am sure the Minister’s briefing says something about the integrated review refresh saying X, Y and Z, but we need to move beyond that. The situation globally, and the commitments that His Majesty’s Government are rightly making, mean that many of the financial questions that might have been addressed a year or 18 months ago will not necessarily be adequate now. This is a programme looking forward, as the Statement says, not just for the next few years but for decades ahead, like AUKUS. Some sense of the long-term planning, relations with our wider allies and questions about interoperability are the key issues.
Furthermore, what work is being done with the defence industrial base to ensure that the contracts can be let, as far as possible, to companies that will give jobs in this country and to our partners in the European supply chain?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, first, I welcome the cross-House support, because this is a very important treaty and a meaningful allied programme. The launching of the Global Combat Air Programme in December 2022, along with Italy and Japan, our partners in this key initiative, was a significant moment in the future development of the new generation of military combat aircraft. In signing the GCAP treaty last week in Tokyo, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence proved that this programme is proceeding at pace, with a commensurate level of commitment that anticipates treaty ratification in early 2024, concept and assessment phase complete by 2025, and Tempest in service and operational by 2035.
This treaty is excellent news for the UK and our partners. It establishes the legal framework that allows contracts to be awarded, GIGO, and the joint business construct that is the government industrial delivery organisation. GIGO will be co-located here in the UK, alongside the joint business construct. Importantly, as a partnership of equals, the first CEO of GCAP will be from Japan and the first CEO of the joint business construct will be from Italy. On the noble Baroness’s point about the sharing out of the work programme, I think it is clear that the intention is that it should be joint, in so far as it is possible. Having said that, the choice of locating the GIGO and the joint business contract here in the UK is recognition of our ability within this area. Of course, international connectivity and all sorts of other things make the UK a sensible place to do this.
I will address some of the issues specifically. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, is right: so far, we have spent about £2 billion on this programme and industry has spent about £600 million. From the UK’s perspective, the expenditure is expected to be between £10 billion and £15 billion, running over the next 10 years. Remember, this is equal shares here.
The F35B is within the budget figures that we have been talking about, which noble Lords will recall were £228 billion over the next 10 years, of which only 25% is committed so far. There is still huge flexibility within the budget to ensure that the important priorities for this country are properly addressed at the appropriate time. It is too early to say exactly what percentage of the workforce will be in the UK, but the intention is that it should be equally shared between the three partners. We will have to see. It is a long time into the future, so who can tell?
On the question of whether other allies are to be involved, the base model programme, the platform, will be very flexible, so there is an absolute intention to involve other allies, whether they be NATO or not, and more customisation can be built into the programme as and when appropriate. The impact on NATO is an extremely good point. This is to do with the global situation that we face. As we all know, we are in an unstable place at the moment. There are issues popping up everywhere, Houthis attacking one of our warships and our warships downing a Houthi missile being the latest examples. These are uncomfortable times, and it is important that we address both the Far East and our responsibilities under NATO. There is no issue in this respect.
On the question of the financial arrangements and the cost of Ukraine, Israel and these latest commitments, Ukraine, as the House will know, is dealt with through a separate budget. Both the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have given an absolute commitment that we will carry on for as long as it takes. Our commitment is unwavering, and our support will be there. The situation in Israel and Gaza is a very moveable feast but we have given full support and are right there, ready to provide supportive aid whenever that is necessary. The movement of ships into the Red Sea and the Gulf is to act as a deterrent to any escalation in that area and to ensure that our forces are protected.
I think that I have answered the question on the global commitments. The last point outstanding was about the industrial base in the UK. There is a Team Tempest, which involves BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK and MBDA UK, but there are over 1,000 companies across the three countries involved, including academia and SMEs. We have huge strength in this country on digital design and additive manufacturing, both of which reduce lead times and costs. We can hope and aspire to this being an extremely successful and very important programme as we progress it, for UK defence and industrial strength in this country.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a serving member of the Armed Forces and as the Prime Minister’s defence and security advocate and add my congratulations to the Government on the signing of this very important treaty, hot on the heels of AUKUS. These together underline the United Kingdom as a partner of choice in the international defence community.
I have two questions for my noble friend, built on the latter part of his previous answer. First, the key cornerstone members of the treaty are, obviously, the UK, Italy and Japan, but is the door now closed for other founder members of this treaty? I cannot help but feel that with potential competition in Europe, the more founder members that we buy in from the start, the greater the security of this programme and decreasing costs for the UK going forward.
My second point concerns the industrial base. In the past, successive Governments have allowed various parts of our industrial base to atrophy. This is in part because, all too often, we have procured the exquisite in the United Kingdom, building, for example, ships such as the Type 45—undoubtedly the best in the world but simply unaffordable for other nations. The key to ensuring that the industrial base continues for many years to come is, as the Minister has hinted, ensuring that this platform is exportable. Sometimes, exportable variants do not have the same kit that we may want for ourselves, but the whole point is that we need open architecture so that variants of this platform can be exported, thereby ensuring the longevity of both the platform and the UK industrial base.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes some good points. My understanding is that, as the treaty is now signed, the founder members are in effect locked in—although there is, I believe, a bit of flexibility. There is no question that this platform is being built with the view that it will be of interest to allies across the globe. As I am sure we all know, 85% of defence exports are combat aircraft, so it is extremely important that this is a successful and flexible platform that appeals to others. There may be a worry about us trying to be all things to all men. I do not believe that that is the case; I believe that the intention of the three equal partners is to ensure that the platform is definitely fit for purpose and will definitely be of interest to allied countries.
My noble friend made a good and salient point about the industrial base in the UK. I imagine that there will be stiff competition in deciding where the GIGO will be located because it will engender a lot of inward investment; some 1,000 people in various organisations have already been taken on to work on it. Obviously, a lot of new technology is involved, rather than older technology. Again, it is about this country having been chosen for the headquarters, which suggests a certain level of commitment to our industrial strength.
Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill
Tuesday 19th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 December 2023 - (19 Dec 2023)
LGBT Veterans Independent Review
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Government for this welcome Statement on the outstanding review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, with respect to this matter.
Between 1967 and 2000, the treatment of those Armed Forces personnel deemed to be LGBT was a total disgrace. They were discharged or dismissed while others felt that they had to resign. Their friends and families felt the trauma of these individuals’ pain. It was 33 years before the ban was lifted, following a change in legislation in 2000. Here we are, nearly 24 years later, with the outstanding review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton; although it cannot right the wrongs of the past, it means that we can do all we can to recognise these injustices fully, to put what we can right and to fight for a better future.
In doing so, I praise, as I have already, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his review, and the efforts and campaigning in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who I am pleased to see in his place, and my noble friend Lord Cashman. However, why is it that these injustices, inflicted by the state and often covered up, not just in this instance, take so long to put right? Had it not been for brave individuals whom I have mentioned, plus the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Fighting With Pride, and many others, these injustices would have remained unresolved for many more years with respect to our Armed Forces.
The Government have said that there will be continuing debate and discussion on this issue, so can the Minister guarantee that this will also be the case for your Lordships’ House? Will he make sure that such debates cover not only the Etherton review but the current situation with respect to LGBT+ personnel in today’s Armed Forces?
At the heart of the review were the testimonies of those who were victims of an overt, brutal, homophobic policy. The review had 49 recommendations, and I believe this to be the case, but can the Minister confirm in this House whether the Government intend to implement all these recommendations in full? If that is not the case, which ones are not to be implemented?
The Prime Minister has himself apologised, which is very welcome. We also welcome the handing back of medals, an Armed Forces veterans badge, and a proper memorial at the National Arboretum. We also welcome the opening of the registration of interests. Can the Minister say more about how the MoD is to make sure that everyone and every family are to be made aware of what is happening and what they have to do to register? Is there any closing date for such registrations to be made in terms of restorative measures or compensation?
The Government will know that, specifically, the Royal British Legion and others are concerned that an arbitrary cap on the total amount offered in compensation is unfair. Can the Minister explain to us why such a cap was introduced and how it will be calculated? How can a cap be set now, before people have come forward with their claims? What if it is found that claims actually exceed any cap? Personally, I think—as I am sure others do—that the Government will have to revisit this. Will all of the restoration of rights, including pensions, include the accrual rates that were lost when people were forced to leave?
I have a final point on the cap. There is a provision for £50 million from the 2024 MoD budget. I believe that is the actual cap, and I am aware that there was discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. However, I believe that at the very least this will need to be kept under review. Can the Minister outline how the £50 million is to be distributed—to which groups and how might they make these claims?
As I say, the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, sets out the need to do as much as we can to address the wrongs of the past. But it also has to be a further watershed moment for our Armed Forces now. We know that discrimination on the basis of sexuality still exists, as does sexism and misogyny, despite recent progress. We owe it to all those who came forward to honour their service, and that of their comrades and families. It shames us all; it saddens us all. But, at the very least, let it be an inspiration to us all, to build that better, more inclusive Armed Forces and society that we all want and deserve.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, was first published, we had the opportunity in your Lordships’ House to debate it at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already touched on some of the issues that were discussed then. For many of us who are not from a service background, the issues that went on in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, as they were then, were absolutely shocking, just as they were for the people who served. It is noticeable that, in his Statement in the other place, Dr Andrew Murrison made the point that when he became a reservist, he was asked, “Are you gay?” As he said, even in 1980 that seemed out of place. And that was because it was out of place.
It is important that we look again at the report by the noble and learned Lord and remind ourselves of the injustices that were done, while at the same time paying tribute to the Government for taking on board almost all of the recommendations. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked, “Is it all of them?” My understanding is that one or two of them will be taken on in a slightly different way—but the acceptance of this report is hugely welcome.
There are some questions we might all need to understand in a little more detail. They are, in particular, how do those people who were affected by the ban know where to access the ways of getting restoration? In particular, if somebody was sacked, that is straight- forward, but if somebody felt the need to give up their commission early because they felt that their sexuality was putting them in extreme difficulties within the Armed Forces, what information will be available to them? How far will His Majesty’s Government be making clear to the wider service community and to veterans’ communities that people can come forward, and explaining how they can do so?
When we talked about the report when it was initially published, the issue was in part about next of kin and those who had service personnel who had died—perhaps who had committed suicide. Yesterday’s government Statement is very welcome in saying that it will be a little more open in terms of who counts as next of kin, recognising the very nature of relationships that might be important to those who are veterans, or who were veterans but are no longer alive. Again, how will those people be informed about ways of ensuring that their loved ones are able to have their service records reinstated? The commitment in itself is good, but we need to ensure that the reality works for both LGBT veterans and their next of kin, and also for those other people who were not actually LGBT service personnel but who, for some reason, were thought to be. This is another group of people who were victimised not because of their sexuality but because of their perceived sexuality—which, again, suggests that there is, or was, a real issue within the Armed Forces about inclusion and diversity.
Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the fact that there are still issues around gender within His Majesty’s Armed Forces—are there other issues we should be picking up on and thinking about, to make sure that, going forward, whether it is about gender or sexuality, people are not victimised for who they are?
This report and the Government’s response are very welcome, but we need to ensure that the inclusivity is there for the service family of today as well.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, it is gratifying to see that everybody is on the same page in this. The treatment of LGBT serving personnel between 1967 and 2000 was wholly unacceptable, and I think everybody accepts that. But it does not reflect the situation today—far from it. Today, the MoD works hard to ensure that all our policies are inclusive in every respect. His Majesty’s Government, with the establishment of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the acceptance of all 49 recommendations, have made a clear statement of that position. In fact, 24 of the 49 recommendations have already been implemented, including all 14 restorative measures. That is an indication of how seriously the Ministry of Defence takes the wrongs of the past.
The Government, and I am sure all of us here, are extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and his team for their thoroughness and commitment in completing such an important report and paving the way to right such an historic wrong to such a deserving section of our Armed Forces. The Government are also deeply indebted to those veterans who shared their testimonies and are committed to ensuring that such bravery is the catalyst for all future change. There is no doubt, in reading the more recent policies put out by Ministers here and in the devolved nations, that there is a clear intent to ensure that this is absolutely seen through and that zero tolerance is absolutely zero tolerance. When it comes down it, there can be no flexibility on this. It is absolutely zero tolerance.
On the question that the noble Lord raised specifically, it has taken a long time to get to this point. That bears testament to the complications in some of the issues that the information-gatherers have faced. As a start, there is not an accurate set of records about why people left the Armed Forces. That is one of the reasons, which we will come on to. I do not know if anybody has had an opportunity to take a look at it, but the “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” webpage is extremely thorough and informative. It attempts to seek out exactly what the issues were, who was treated badly and how badly—different grades of dreadful behaviour. We will do all that we can to ensure that people engage with that website to get the information that allows us to move forward and start talking about the financial arrangement.
The recommendation for the financial award scheme has been completely accepted. We are working at pace with experts across government to develop an appropriate scheme. There have been other schemes like this elsewhere in the world. The Canadian scheme is a good model. The £50 million cap that came out from the Etherton report is to some extent based on the experience that the Canadian Government had in approaching this. It would seem to be, at this stage, an appropriate sum of money. It is a meaningful sum of money. I am afraid that nobody knows how many people have been involved in and affected by this, but as a statement of intent it is a proper sum of money that should go to deal with the issue.
Although we are at the early stages, the Government are working at pace. The question about the number of claimants and the likely size of the award will be gone into only after the front door to the website is open and people can apply. There is no intention of closing the door. It will remain open. The expectation is that we should start to see some payments from the financial award scheme towards the end of next year. I know that it has taken a long time, but at least progress is being made.
Perhaps I should say at this point that this is not compensation and does not exclude people applying for compensation. This is an award scheme to recognise the wrongs of the past. If individuals or groups of individuals want to go for compensation through our legal system, it is entirely open to them to do that.
The other question that the noble Lord raised was about pensions. I have read some misinformation about accrued pension rights being negated. That is absolutely not the case. Accrued pension rights are protected under law, but I am afraid that the “lost” pension rights, once people had left the forces, cannot be dealt with because people may have gone to other businesses and accrued other pensions in other directions. It is not something that we can get involved in.
The noble Baroness raised the extremely important question of next of kin. Again, the hope and expectation is that this will come out in the amount of people who apply through “LGBT veterans: support and next steps”. This should be an emerging picture. Hopefully, individuals and organisations will apply fairly quickly.
I think that I have answered all the specific questions raised so far. If I have not, I am sure that noble Lords will let me know.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the reply from the Minister. I reflect that I have been working on this issue for 32 years, since I first gave evidence to the Select Committee in 1991, and working more recently, over the last seven years, with my noble friend Lord Lexden. It is clear that we need a future debate on implementation and I have a couple of questions that I will canter through.
It is an excellent report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who it is good to see is in his place. It should be recorded that it was conditional on the report that an award cap be recommended. I am pleased to hear, and I hope that the Minister will again guarantee, that the cap can, if the Government so decide, be increased and that the report is in no way a veto on any increase.
Recommendation 26 deals with the amending of relevant records of those who were subjected to administrative discharge. The Government have adopted the approach suggested. However, there is a problem. The Government’s guidance states that this process will be available to veterans who were administratively discharged during the ban, but it is highly likely that applications will be received prior to 1967. Does the Minister agree that it is important that these people are not excluded from the scope of this measure of redress? Indeed, the draft legislation set out in Annexe 10 of the excellent report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, offers a legislative way forward. Finally, therefore, can the Government pledge that LGBT people discharged from the Armed Forces before 1967 solely on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity will have their records amended if they meet the criteria?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his important contribution. On the question of a cap, as I said, until we know the full picture, it is difficult to say whether the cap will be sufficient, but there has to be a level of understanding that, if it is necessary, there must be flexibility within it. On the question of recommendation 26, I think it best if I write to the noble Lord on the detail. Thirdly, on the pre-1967 discharges, there was no difference between the military law and the civil law at that point, so I am not absolutely certain where we stand on that. My suspicion is that it was the law of the nation at that time and that there is not much to go on, but I may well be wrong.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I have to remind the House again of my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. Indeed, I was just reflecting that, while this may all seem a long time ago, I had in fact served in the Army for some 12 years before the ban on homosexuals serving in the Army was lifted. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on his excellent review and, indeed, the Government on accepting the spirit, we could say, of all 49 recommendations.
In response to the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about how long this has taken, I could not agree more. Indeed, I am probably partly to blame as a former Minister for Veterans, when this was across my desk on a regular basis. The frustration in trying to push this along was genuine. I am delighted that, finally, it has been done.
I have one specific question for my noble friend, and I hope it is an easy one. Of the 49 recommendations, one is ongoing. Recommendation 11 is the commitment to launch an application process for restorative measures and maintain it for 24 months, which is clearly an excellent recommendation. My only concern is that I understand that, during the process, as is often the way in the MoD, some historic records were lost. If, at the end of that 24-month process, there are any concerns that individuals have not had the opportunity to find their records or apply, will there be a review of that deadline and will it be extended if necessary?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I assure the House that if, at the end of 24 months, we do not feel we have got to the bottom of this, the deadline will be extended.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Opening Doors. It is in that capacity that I have met, over the last 25 years, many of the individuals we are talking about and listened to their stories. We are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for bringing those stories to the attention of the nation.
I have three brief questions. First, there were in the forces senior officers who were compassionate and understood the devastation that would befall anyone who was discharged for this reason. Therefore, in acts of kindness and humanity, they sometimes trumped up other charges and made those the reasons for the discharge. If individuals come forward with evidence that they should be eligible to be part of this scheme, but technically they are not, will their cases be given due consideration?
Secondly, I raise a question that I raised with the noble Earl’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about HIV. The report deals with health in its wider sense, particularly mental health, but the issue of HIV is buried deep within it. There is an ongoing issue concerning recruitment of and support for individuals with HIV in the forces. Would the Minister be willing to meet with me and other members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS to discuss that matter further?
Finally, this report has been very well received; it is a source of immense gratification and support to the people in this position, but the hurt runs deep and lasts. Therefore, will the Minister consider what we can do to ensure that the organisations involved in providing that ongoing support, which they have given for 25 years, continue to be in a position to do so? Some of them are having financial issues at the moment.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. On that of personal issues and compassionate leaders, that is completely accepted. There is opportunity within the “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” webpage—what we refer to as the open door—to produce that level of information to ensure that nobody is left out. It is very important that nobody feels that they do not have the opportunity to put their case and have it heard.
On the question of meeting the HIV group, I would be more than delighted to do that. Thirdly, we will certainly look at which organisations have been particularly supportive. Nobody wants these well-meaning charitable organisations to suffer unnecessarily. I have noticed that quite a lot of charities, for one reason or another, have merged and gathered together in the last few years to create a slightly more forceful and valuable contribution. That is often the way. If we can help in steering groups together, that may be a very good solution and make certain that the intention is still kept in mind.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, it is good that the Commons Statement has been repeated here; less good that it has taken nearly a week to reach us and that we deal with it so close to the Recess. This underlines the need for a full debate in this House on the momentous report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the Government’s response to it. I understand that there is to be a debate in the Commons. Can we please have a commitment from the Government that there will be a debate here?
On the question of pensions, there really must be no resiling from the Government’s commitments and duties in this area. The issues are of such immense importance to LGBT veterans, and I was not altogether reassured by my noble friend’s comments earlier on pensions. I urge him to ensure that everything that can be done is done to bring justice to LGBT veterans in respect of pensions.
The Government state that they accept “the intent” behind all the recommendations in the report. That is not an entirely helpful statement: either recommendations are accepted wholly or in part, or they are not accepted. Worry is likely to arise among LGBT veterans about the apparent equivocation in that statement.
I draw attention to Recommendation 25 in the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. This relates to Part 12 of the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act 2022. My noble friend Lord Cashman and I, along with our good friend and adviser in academic life, Professor Paul Johnson, have a deep interest in its provisions, having campaigned for them, as my noble friend Lord Cashman said, over many years. Through these provisions, service personnel can secure pardons for past disciplinary offences which were deeply unjust at the time and have now been swept away. Can my noble friend assure the House that the MoD will promote the scheme with vigour and encourage LGBT veterans living with unjust convictions to apply for pardons through it? As things stand, separate applications have to be made through the Home Office, which will prove confusing for LGBT veterans. Will the MoD stop this happening by ensuring that application forms are readily available to them?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very valuable contribution, and I agree that rather a long time has elapsed between the Commons Statement and me standing here. I will undertake to talk to the Whips about getting a full debate. If we are going to have one in the Commons, then we should certainly have one here.
On pensions, I did not mean to be less than fully committed to ensuring that we do all we can to make sure that pension rights are protected and that pensions accrued are properly taken care of under the law. The point I was trying to make is that one can accrue only one pension at time, and if individuals have accrued further pensions after leaving Her Majesty’s Forces—as they then were—one needs to take that into account.
On the use of the word “intent”, I think it is more to do with interpretation than intent, in that, while the recommendations from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, are incredibly thorough and very well thought through, one or two individual practical things may need to be got absolutely right. All the recommendations are accepted and, as I think I said earlier, more than half have been implemented, including all 14 of the restorative measures.
On the final point from my noble friend, the MoD will definitely promote with vigour and at every opportunity—and it is the third or fourth time I have mentioned it—the “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” front door to the website, where one can read through in great detail the breadth of opportunity to make valid points. That is completely accepted, and the point about pardons is equally well made.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister questioned why I asked that the process be widened to those discharged before 1967. To clarify, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, intimated, we widened and extended the pardons and disregards before 1967 and then widened this to include the armed services. Therefore, legislatively, we have a way to consider those discharged before 1967.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly take that away and look at it properly.
Ukraine
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, I will now repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question given earlier today in the House of Commons:
“Since the Minister for the Armed Forces last updated the House on 28 November, the situation on the ground has remained largely unchanged. Ukraine has been fortifying its borders with Belarus with dragon’s teeth, razor wire and anti-tank ditches, and is pivoting to a more defensive posture following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s 1 December 2023 call for rapid fortification across the front.
On 12 December, Kyivstar, Ukraine’s largest mobile network operator, suffered a cyberattack. The incident is likely one of the highest-impact disruptive cyberattacks on Ukrainian networks since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Russian air force is highly likely to have carried out the first use of the AS-24 Killjoy air-launched ballistic missile since August 2023. Killjoy has almost certainly had a mixed combat debut. Many of its launches have likely missed their intended targets, while Ukraine has also succeeded in shooting down examples of the supposedly undefeatable system.
We will continue to support priority areas for Ukraine in the coming months, including air defence and hardening critical national infrastructure sites. Our foundational supply of critical artillery ammunition continues. Most recently, on 11 December, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK will lead a new maritime capability coalition alongside Norway, delivering ships and vehicles to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to operate at sea. This represents a step change in the UK’s support for Ukraine both in defending against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion and in developing Ukraine’s maritime capabilities for the future. The new coalition will deliver long-term support to Ukraine, including training, equipment and infrastructure to bolster security in the Black Sea. We could not be more clear: as the Prime Minster has said, we are in this for as much as it takes for as long as it takes.
The maritime capability coalition initiative reinforces our collective long-term commitment to Ukraine and provides a permanent mechanism through which we can support the development of Ukraine’s maritime capability. Agreed during recent meetings of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine defence contact group, it forms part of a series of capability coalitions to strengthen Ukraine’s operations in other domains, including on land and in the air. On 13 and 14 December, the Ministry of Defence, along with the Department for Business and Trade, successfully conducted the first UK trade mission to Kyiv since the invasion in 2022. The mission enabled discussions with and between UK and Ukrainian officials and industry on opportunities for long-term co-operation, and resulted in tangible agreements for industry.
The UK has committed £4.6 billion of military support to date as we continue to donate significant amounts of ammunition and matériel from our own stocks, as well as those purchased from across the globe. In addition, we have trained more than 52,000 soldiers since 2015. The UK and our allies have been clear that we will not stand by as the Kremlin persists in its disregard for the sovereignty of Ukraine and international law. This includes the recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territorial waters, which is established in accordance with international maritime law”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Statement with respect to an Urgent Question. It is important to say at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition continue to fully support the Government in backing Ukraine in its war with Russia. Wherever possible, we need to accelerate this support to meet the needs of Ukraine.
The noble Lord will know that President Zelensky recently warned that Ukraine needed the delivery of ammunition and vital shells to be speeded up. Can the noble Lord update us on the current situation, and on what plans the Government have to ensure that the supply of much-needed equipment and weapons to Ukraine is, in the words of President Zelensky, speeded up?
It is welcome that the Government and the Minister have repeated the announcement of a new maritime capability coalition, alongside Norway, to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to operate in the Black Sea. Is this now operating, or when does the noble Lord expect it to be fully operational? Is there any more he can say about what ships et cetera are involved with respect to that?
We are proud to support Ukraine and have always recognised that their fight is our fight, and that our resolve must not, and will not, weaken. I also welcome in the Minister’s comments the fact that the Government recognise that they are not only supporting Ukraine’s armed forces but that we need to do as much as we can to support the Ukrainian people in their fight as well. That is a very important part of the Statement and I urge him to continue with it.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, makes a number of very good points. On the final point, we have committed, including humanitarian aid, in excess of £9.5 billion—close £10 billion. I note his point about supporting the Ukrainian people and I would say that the way that the citizens of this country have opened their doors has been exemplary.
On the question of equipment support and ammunition, we are continuing to get as close as we can, as are the rest of the allies, to what President Zelensky is after. To date, we have supplied over 300,000 artillery shells. It is increasingly becoming an artillery war, certainly during the winter months—in fact, it is becoming a sort of manufacturing war, about who can manufacture the weapons fastest. Of those 300,000 shells, some 50,000 have been produced since July 2023. We have supplied 31 armoured vehicles, 14 mine ploughs to go on the front of the T-62s, 6 million rounds of small arms ammunition and, of course, spares for the AS-90 artillery guns. We are absolutely committed to maintaining that level of support and ensuring that Ukraine has the weaponry that it needs to continue to fight against the Russian aggressors.
What is interesting about the Black Sea is that everybody is trying to ensure that it does not become a sort of Russian lake. Through some extremely clever and intelligent use of small amphibious weapons, Ukraine has been successful in pushing the Russians further eastwards. It is that level of support and training that this new coalition is particularly enthusiastic to support.
At the same time, from a trade perspective, the opening of the maritime corridor across the Black Sea has started to have a fairly significant effect on the ability of Ukraine to earn foreign currency through its exports, particularly of grain. While it maintained overland routes and used the Danube ports, it is the maritime corridor across the Black Sea which really provides the greatest opportunity. In recent months, I think there were about 200 ships in total that got out for trade, including 5 million tonnes of grain. We are getting there; it is incumbent upon us all. The maritime coalition opened only on Monday. We have already got 12 countries involved, with three more expressing interest. It is obviously going to become very productive.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am aware that this is a UQ rather than a Statement, so I will not detain the House too long, to allow others to get in. This is obviously a welcome response to an Urgent Question. Maritime co-operation, particularly bilateral relations with our Norwegian colleagues, is hugely important, and that is very welcome. This morning, a Ukrainian general suggested that there was not sufficient military aid going into Ukraine. President Zelensky has just given a press conference and said that Ukraine is not losing. What are His Majesty’s Government—both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary—doing to ensure that our partners in NATO, whether the United States or Hungary, are really going to give Ukraine the sort of support that the United Kingdom is still giving so clearly?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise this issue. We were the first to support Ukraine in its endeavour and we continue to encourage everybody to come along. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group is very important, and we continue to push for support wherever it is possible with all our allies.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare again my interest as a serving member of the UK Armed Forces. I commend the Government on their continued support, and indeed His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition for theirs, and for being convenor to ensure that the international community continues to support Ukraine. However, I have always had a concern. One day, this war will end, but what comes next? I often worry that we have not learned the lessons of the past, from the war in Iraq when we did not plan for what comes next. It has now been over a year since there has been an assessment as to what the reconstruction of Ukraine will cost. Unless we know that on an ongoing basis, it is very hard to bring countries together to commit to the reconstruction of Ukraine. I simply ask my noble friend to commit to put in the Library the latest assessment of the cost of reconstruction.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his repeating the Answer and follow on. Can he say a little more about the maritime capability of Ukraine? One of the aims of this maritime alliance or coalition is to reinforce the maritime capacity of Ukraine. It would be very helpful to know what exactly that maritime capability is.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend raises a particularly topical subject. There are obviously areas I cannot go into, but the new coalition will deliver long- term support to Ukraine, including training, equipment and infrastructure, to bolster security throughout the Black Sea.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish each and every one of your Lordships, the Deputy Speaker, Table Clerks, Hansard reporters, doorkeepers and everybody who makes this House such a pleasant place to work a very merry Christmas. It has gone a bit mild, but I am told we could have a white Christmas on high ground. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.