House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Last year we cleared the equivalent of 90,000 legacy claims and processed a total of more than 112,000 claims—the largest volume in two decades. The total asylum backlog is now at its lowest point since December 2022. The improvement of processes continues, and we will continue to review and improve them to accelerate the decision making from hereon in.
Andy Carter
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that update, but there are still four hotels in and around Warrington housing asylum seekers. Will he give us an update on the closing of hotels, and will he also tell us what steps he is taking to speed up the processing of refugees when they are in hotels awaiting the outcome of their claims?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend made an important link between the speed of asylum processing and the need for asylum accommodation in various forms, including hotels. We are moving away from using hotels as that type of accommodation, thus reducing the cost to the public purse, and we will maintain recruitment levels and improve processes so that the speed of processing that we are seeing now can be continued. Although I cannot make commitments about the specific hotels in my hon. Friend’s constituency, he should rest assured that we are seeking to drive down the number of hotels on which we rely.
Wendy Chamberlain
My constituent arrived in the UK 15 months ago and was interviewed, but has been waiting for more than a year to receive a final response. He is not alone: according to the Refugee Council, 33,085 asylum cases have been lodged in the last six months alone, putting ever more strain on a broken system. The Home Secretary said that the legacy backlog was going down, but what about those more recent cases? What is being done to deal with them?
James Cleverly
The improved processes and the increased number of Home Office officials working on this issue mean that not only the legacy cases but the current ones will be dealt with more quickly, which will reduce the need for asylum accommodation of all types. I cannot comment on individual cases because the circumstances are different in each one, but the hon. Lady should rest assured that the lessons we have learned about the increased speed of processing will benefit those who are already in the system. Of course, we are also determined to drive down the number of people who come here in the first place, reducing the pressure on our asylum processing system in doing so.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The shambolic incompetence of this Government across every aspect of its disgraceful mismanagement of our country’s asylum system knows no bounds, but today I will highlight a particularly egregious example. We already knew that the number of removals of asylum seekers whose claims had been rejected had collapsed by 50% since Labour left office in 2010, but over the weekend it emerged that the Home Office had lost contact with an astonishing 85% of the 5,000 people who have been identified for removal to Rwanda. Where on earth are those 4,250 asylum seekers who have gone missing?
Will the Home Secretary drop all the smoke and mirrors and acknowledge that the Rwanda plan is just an extortionately expensive and unworkable distraction? When will he adopt Labour’s plan to recruit 1,000 additional immigration enforcement officers to a new returns unit, so that we can have a system that is based on common sense—
Mr Speaker
No, it is not “thank you”. I have to get a lot of people in and this is totally unfair. The question was very, very long, and I was coughing to get the hon. Gentleman to stop, not to continue. That is the signal we need to understand. If the hon. Gentleman does not want a particular Back Bencher to get in, I ask him please to point them out, because this is giving me that problem.
James Cleverly
The mask has slipped. The Labour party has said that even if the Rwanda scheme were to be successful, it would not keep it. That shows what Labour Members really think about this. They have no plan, they have no commitment, and they have even said that if something was working they would scrap it. [Interruption.]
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Apologies for my hesitation, Mr Speaker. I was so busy listening to the heckling opposite that it was difficult to focus on what was going on.
This question is about something of which we should be very proud. The fact is that fraud ruins lives, but this Government have managed to get it down by 13% year on year, online and offline. It is extremely important that we continue with that ambitious agenda and ensure that we continue to cut fraud so that we can bring it down completely by the end of the Parliament.
Nigel Mills
Would my right hon. Friend agree that the key to reducing levels of fraud is to help people to understand what might be a fraud so that they are not taken in by it? Is there more that we can do to help people to spot the signs and not become a victim in the first place?
Tom Tugendhat
The question about what is a fraud is becoming all too prevalent. We have heard of many different kinds of fraud coming up in many different areas, which is why in a few weeks’ time we will, I hope, launch a new comms campaign about it. The truth is that fraud affects so many people in so many ways, and we are trying to make sure that people know what is going on so they can claim the help and support that they need, to make sure that we defeat this pernicious evil.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
We simply do not have the resources or expertise to tackle fraud. I have a constituent who is still waiting for a charging decision five years after being the victim of fraud. Her retirement has been ruined waiting for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make the charging decision. Durham constabulary has a single forensic account. Does the Minister believe, as I do, that a lack of specialist resources is leading to unacceptable delays in justice?
Tom Tugendhat
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and that is exactly why this Government have introduced a new national fraud squad—which is now almost fully recruited, at 400—and increased the funding available to forces to fight fraud. Some forces are doing exceptionally well at this already. Avon is doing extremely well and the City of London police is doing exceptionally well in leading on fraud nationally.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
The Home Office engages with the devolved nations through the inter-ministerial group and recognises that each of the nations of the UK has varying immigration needs, reflected in the varied shortage occupation lists for each nation. Immigration will, however, remain reserved. It is not possible to operate distinct systems without effectively creating an internal UK migration border system.
Steven Bonnar
Figures from the Office for National Statistics have revealed that the changes to the minimum income threshold for family and skilled workers disproportionately impact Scotland. Median earnings on the west coast of Scotland are £24,700 a year, which is far short even of the climbdown figure of £29,000. Did the Home Secretary even consider that this policy would effectively cut off migration to parts of Scotland that need and would benefit from inward migration?
Tom Pursglove
The Government’s position is clear: the changes that we are introducing are the right thing. The numbers of dependents we are seeing coming is disproportionate. There will be an opportunity, through the review of the composition of the immigration salary list in the second phase, and through the call for evidence, for exactly those debates to be had and for those views to be made known.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Home Office’s knee-jerk policy to raise the threshold and its sudden partial reverse ferret to bring it slightly back down again caused a huge amount of distress to people up and down these islands who now do not know what the future holds for them and their families. What equality impact assessment has been carried out on the policy which, as well as affecting Scotland, will disproportionately affect women?
Tom Pursglove
When he announced the changes, the Home Secretary made a commitment to lay the information on the projected volumes in the House Library. It seems that the hon. Lady is criticising the Government for not taking the steps that we have taken to say clearly that the changes will not be applied retrospectively. We think that that is the right thing to do and that it has provided reassurance to people. Ultimately, we need to get net migration under control and we think it is a pragmatic and sensible package to take forward.
Alison Thewliss
That does not answer the question that I put to the Minister at all. What equality impact assessment has been carried out on this policy? What recognition of wage levels in Scotland has there been in relation to the policy? He cannot tell me.
One of my constituents tells me that they are worried about their spouse, who works as a legal administrator, coming over from Australia. Also, a man is worried about his nephew and partner who will never be able to return from Canada if they want to come back to live in Scotland, and there are many more who are guilty only of falling in love with somebody of what the Government consider to be the wrong nationality. Will the Minister apologise to them for the chaos that these policies have caused?
Tom Pursglove
The position is as I have set out. We think the number of people coming to the country in this way is not sustainable and that we are taking forward a pragmatic, balanced package. As I have said, the measures will not be applied retrospectively, so they will not affect existing applications that have been lodged.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government take domestic burglary very seriously, which is why, just over a year ago, we obtained a commitment from the police to attend every residential burglary. That is delivering results and, according to the crime survey, residential burglary has fallen by 8% year on year.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the Minister for his response. In 2022, the cost of rural theft in the south-west rose by 16.6% from the year before. Has the Minister made an assessment of the success of the new national rural crime unit in improving police contacts with victims of rural theft?
Chris Philp
I agree that combating rural crime is extremely important, and the national rural crime unit is designed to do exactly that. We have also legislated, of course, and we will implement that legislation to ensure that things like all-terrain vehicles and agricultural equipment have to be marked or fitted with an immobiliser. Overall domestic burglary has fallen by 57% since 2010.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The commitments in the drugs strategy are being delivered, including investing more than £300 million in additional treatment capacity to create over 50,000 extra treatment places. We are also enforcing hard, such as by closing down more than 2,000 county lines since 2019.
John Penrose
Local police in and around Weston-super-Mare have had notable successes in disrupting drug dealing and supply, but new dealers quickly take the place of the old ones. The quantity of drugs and the number of addicts are not declining. Does the Minister accept that although enforcement and education are vital, they are not enough to solve this problem on their own, and that the underlying legal frameworks we use to control these dangerous chemicals have to be addressed, too?
Chris Philp
Enforcement is important. Besides closing down those 2,000 county lines, Border Force seized about 19 tonnes of cocaine in the year ending March 2022—the largest amount seized in a single year on record. I have already mentioned treatment. The most important thing is to get people out of their addiction entirely, which is why we are investing so much extra money in treatment.
There are no plans to change the legal framework. Drugs are illegal for a reason. They are highly addictive and harmful, and the out-of-control public drug consumption in those jurisdictions that have liberalised significantly, such as California, San Francisco and so on, is not something we want to see in this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are seeing escalating consumption and movement of drugs in Northern Ireland, and the drugs are coming from England and the Republic of Ireland. What discussions will the Minister have with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we stop drugs crossing the border? We want to stop them coming from England, too.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, one feature of the island of Ireland is that there is essentially no border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and he has alluded to the various challenges that poses. I would be happy to take up that issue and to see what more we can do to disrupt the supply of drugs north-south and east-west. I thank him for raising the issue.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
We are making significant progress on closing hotels, with 50 due to be closed by the end of January and more in the coming months. We are also working to move asylum seekers into alternative, cheaper accommodation and have successfully cleared the legacy backlog by deciding more than 112,000 cases, while maintaining the integrity of the system.
Dr Evans
Last year, after the police, the fire service and I raised concerns, the Home Office closed the OYO hotel in Earl Shilton. However, Leicestershire still has asylum hotels open, including just over the constituency border in Appleby Magna, for example, and my constituents are concerned. Will the Minister set out a timeline for when the hotels may close or, more likely, will he set out how the least suitable hotels will be closed first so that, as the backlog is dealt with, the closing of hotels falls in line, too?
Tom Pursglove
As I set out, we are making good progress. I hear calls from colleagues from throughout the House for closures in their constituencies. We need to stick the course on delivering that, taking into account a number of factors including the ease of exit, the speed of exit, the fact that notice periods come into play and, crucially, value for money, which the taxpayer would rightly expect.
Maggie Throup
In welcoming my hon. Friend to his new position, may I urge him finally to make good on his predecessor’s promise to close the temporary accommodation centres in my constituency and restore the two hotels back to their intended purpose? Will he also work with his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that the “local links” rule relating to social housing is amended to prevent Erewash from being disproportionately burdened by new applications once residents are awarded asylum?
Tom Pursglove
I hear my hon. Friend’s calls for the specific hotels in her constituency to be closed. She can be reassured that we will continue to work closely on this issue with colleagues from across Government to get it right and make sure that we can exit hotels as quickly as possible.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier answers. As he knows, I received official notification today that Newton Park hotel, which was a four-star hotel in my constituency before it was taken over entirely for use by asylum seekers, is to have the contract ended at the end of February. That is an enormous relief to those in those in the small village there and to those in other villages that the important V3 bus route goes through. I thank him for keeping to the word of his predecessor that the hotel use for asylum seekers would end in the second tranche of closures.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the representations she made on this issue. The situation in her constituency demonstrates that the Government’s plan is working and we are seeing hotel exits happen. That is a direct consequence of getting on and making decisions, bringing forward alternative accommodation and also, crucially, reducing in-flow into the system in the first place.
Jack Brereton
I welcome the progress that has been made on tackling illegal small boat crossings, which has meant it has been possible to end the use of the North Stafford hotel in Stoke-on-Trent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only through the most unequivocable legislation on Rwanda that we can deliver proper deterrence that will mean that numbers will come down further?
Tom Pursglove
The point that my hon. Friend makes gets to the nub of the issue. One of the most important factors in sustaining the progress we have made is reducing the number of in-flows into the UK, particularly via small boat crossings of the channel. That is why my message to the House is clear: if Members want to see hotels close and the progress sustained, they need to be in the Lobby to support the Bill this week.
Alexander Stafford
My constituents and I were delighted at the end of last year to see the end of the Ibis hotel in Bramley being used to house illegal immigrants and its return to normal service. Will the Minister reassure me that any forthcoming immigration legislation passed in this House will make sure that this situation will never happen again, by banning the use of hotels outright and making sure that illegal immigrants are sent to Rwanda for processing?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said, the key principle behind the Bill is to help us to bring to an end the egregious crossings of the channel organised by evil criminal gangs. It will help us to ensure that there is greater control of our borders and that there are not these in-flows into the system, which have undoubtedly had the consequence of our needing to respond to that challenge through the opening of hotels. That is precisely what we are trying to put a stop to.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last week, The Times reported that there are 10,000 hotel beds going unused, at a cost of £1.5 million a day—that is in addition to the 3,500 buffer of empty beds held as a contingency in case of Manston being overwhelmed. Are those figures actually correct?
Tom Pursglove
The right hon. Lady will recognise that it is of course important for there to be a buffer, to make sure that operationally we have the bed spaces required in a contingency situation to be able to respond to any surges and particular challenges. That is a difficult area but one that we are looking at carefully. Within the hotel estate, we are of course maximising the use of bed spaces wherever possible, which again helps us to get on and close the hotels, in a way that I think she would like to see.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The downside of the volume of asylum applications being granted is the pressure that that is putting on the local authority homeless sections. Will the Minister have another look at the time given to asylum seekers from the date on which their application is accepted to the date on which they have to move out of Home Office accommodation? Will he consider the issue of 28 days versus 56 days, which is the recognised limit under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017? Otherwise, all we are going to do is transfer people from Home Office-funded hotels to local authority-funded ones, with all the extra pressure of financial problems that that creates for local authorities.
Tom Pursglove
On the dates, we are working with local authorities to give them as early visibility as possible about the anticipated number of people with decisions that have been granted that they should expect to see. That helps to forward-plan and we are mindful of those points. As things stand, there is no intention to change that 28-day period. Clearly, planning and working with local authorities is critical, but in many cases people have more than 28 days within which to vacate.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Oldham has a proud history of supporting the persecuted. As of March last year, our town is home to 910 asylum seekers, 145 of whom are in hotel accommodation, but there the housing crisis meets the homelessness crisis: 1,000 people in temporary accommodation, including 500 children. Is it not time that the Government reviewed the dispersal policy, to ensure that every part of England plays its fair share? I gently point out that Braintree is home to just two asylum seekers, as opposed to Oldham’s 910.
Tom Pursglove
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I and my officials are carefully considering what more can be done to ensure that there is equitability in the approach to dispersal. That is critical, and we need to work carefully through some of the pressures and challenges that these issues present, but I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that a key part of the response is to get the flows into the system down, and they do not have a credible plan for doing that.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There are currently 56,000 asylum seekers in hotels. The Prime Minister promised to close those hotels some time last year, but since then the figures have gone up by 10,000. Can the Minister confirm that that figure is correct?
Tom Pursglove
I am clear in my mind that the figure that the hon. Gentleman has cited, and that the shadow Home Secretary used last week, does not represent the picture as it stands today. They will recognise that there is periodic reporting on statistical releases, but the figures they cite are not representative of the position on the ground today.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
On 4 December, I announced a new package of measures to further reduce legal net migration, including limitations on family dependants being brought in by workers and students, creating a salary threshold and raising the minimum income requirement progressively over the next few years.
Martin Vickers
My right hon. Friend will know that the net migration figure of over 700,000 is completely unsustainable. Were it to continue, that would represent the creation of 10 new parliamentary constituencies each year. What co-operation does his Department have with the public services that have to meet the demands from the newcomers?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must be conscious of the impact of the level of net migration on local populations and local authorities. We recognise that the figure is too high and we are taking action to bring it down. We work closely with other Government Departments to deliver on that, but while Opposition Front Benchers criticise the headline figures, they also oppose every single step we take to bring that figure down.
Sir David Evennett
I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border for all their work towards delivering on our manifesto commitment to reduce net migration. My constituents are now looking for the results of all their hard work. Will the Home Secretary outline how his new legal migration package will make the most of our post-Brexit points-based immigration system?
James Cleverly
This country has always had a global outlook: the ethnic composition of the Government at the most senior levels is a direct reflection of our global connectivity and those human bridges across the world. We want to ensure this country is able to benefit from the expertise, knowledge and work of the brightest and best from around the whole world in a manner that is controlled, fair, predictable and well enforced.
Stephen Crabb
It is good that the Government want to ensure that the brightest and best can continue to come to the UK to study, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that the changes to the family dependant rules for students risk causing enormous damage to some of our elite business schools, which compete in the global marketplace for experienced, outstanding professionals? What work is he doing with the sector to try to overcome some of those challenges?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we are in a globally competitive environment when it comes to this country’s quality higher education postgraduate offer. I have no doubt that we are still highly competitive. We will continue to work with the university sector on this and ensure that the people we bring to the UK are here to study and add value, and that no institution in our higher education sector mistakes its role—they are educators, not a back-door visa system.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg the Home Secretary to spread those more enlightened views to some of his colleagues. Migration should not be a dirty word. I am the son of a migrant. I migrated myself to the United States at one stage. My DNA tells me that I am 34% Irish and 32% Swedish. Can every Member of this Parliament have their DNA published so that we can bring some sense to this discussion about migration?
James Cleverly
I am not sure that the Government are able to compel such widespread disclosure—perhaps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority might have a view on such things. Both sides of my family are of immigrant stock: my mother came to the UK in the 1960s, and my father’s family in 1066. This country has benefited from controlled immigration in a fair system, where people who play by the rules are rewarded and we say no to those who refuse to play by the rules.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am a legal migrant, too. Bath has a vibrant hospitality industry that caters for local people and tourists from all over the world, but many of our hotels, restaurants, bars and pubs are already struggling to find enough staff or are under threat of reduced working hours and closure. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the proposed new salary thresholds and measures to reduce legal migration do not worsen those staff shortages?
James Cleverly
We liaise very closely with other Government Departments to ensure that our system, which is transparent and fair, also supports the British economy. We work particularly closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those who have talent and ambition but who, for whatever reason, are currently unable to fully engage in the job market are enabled to do so. I myself have a background in the hospitality industry, and we want that industry to continue to thrive. It is not the case that we should automatically rely on overseas labour for that; we can have home-grown talent as well.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary talked about people coming to UK universities to study. Many people also come to our universities to carry out ground-breaking and economically important research, and they are worried about the rise in the minimum income thresholds, because that means they will be unable to bring their families with them. What assessment has he made of the impact of the new changes on our universities’ important research work?
James Cleverly
We recognise the contribution of the international pool of talent. Indeed, when I was Foreign Secretary I signed up to a deal with India for talented postgraduates to exchange experience in our respective countries. We will always look to support the genuine draw on talent, but we will also ensure that the higher education system is not used as a back-door means of immigration. The system is about research and education, not a back-door means of getting permanent residence in this country.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
Giving the police the resources they need to police local communities and fight crime remains a Government priority. We have delivered on our commitment to recruit 20,000 additional police officers; indeed, we have surpassed that. Decisions about how they are deployed are, of course, a matter for discussion between chief constables, police and crime commissioners, and mayors, who are responsible for their local communities.
Chris Elmore
The legacy of Government cuts has left police forces across England and Wales with a £3.2 billion cash shortfall, and 6,000 officers have now been taken away from frontline policing duties in order to fill the roles of former police staff. Can the Home Secretary start to acknowledge the effect of Tory cuts? How will he rectify that and get more frontline police back into our neighbourhoods across the United Kingdom?
James Cleverly
As I said, decisions on how a police force balances its important back-office roles and frontline policing roles are rightly decisions for the chief constable. We have given additional resource, and we have delivered on our commitment to have more police officers. Of course we are looking at police funding formulas to ensure that they remain well resourced, but there are more than 20,000—in fact, 20,947—additional police officers in England and Wales. That will ensure that there are more police on the frontline.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) said, to this day we are feeling the devastating impact of the Tories’ decision to cut 20,000 police officers. Ministers such as the Home Secretary seem to expect credit for desperately trying to reverse it, but the National Police Chiefs’ Council was right that the efforts at reversal have moored 6,000 warranted officers in roles traditionally filled by civilians. Again, we have heard from the Home Secretary that we have never had it so good, but there are still 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police. Why will the Government not match our commitment to get 13,000 more police officers and police community support officers out on the beat?
James Cleverly
Unless Labour has a plan for paying for those figures, it is just empty rhetoric. The simple truth is that there are record numbers of officers in police forces across the country, including Essex Police, which I visited this morning—it has never had more police officers than it has currently. It is right that chief constables decide how to deploy those police officers. Again, unless we hear a plan to pay for those additional officers, I will not trust Labour’s figures.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
We have been mindful of the need to balance the impacts on individual sectors with economic growth, and the needs of the labour market with the need to reduce levels of immigration. As part of our policy development, we undertook analytical work across Government that supports our decisions. A regulatory impact assessment will be developed in due course.
Richard Thomson
The director of Universities Scotland, Alastair Sim, has expressed concern that changes to the Government’s visa income threshold could affect universities’ ability to attract global talent. International students and academics make a contribution in excess of £5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. If the Government recognise the contribution of international students and academics, as they say they do, why are they introducing a policy that threatens to prevent future cohorts of them from making a similar contribution?
Tom Pursglove
Individuals will still be able to make a valid contribution in the years ahead, but in a sustainable and managed way. There are no immediate plans to introduce further exemptions to the increased salary threshold, but the salary discounts remain in place. We will continue to engage as the measures are introduced. There are also opportunities domestically for recruitment. At every opportunity, we should be trying to support domestic recruitment wherever we can.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Work to update the funding formula is continuing, and I will update the House as soon as I can. The House should be aware that next year, 2024-25, police and crime commissioners funding frontline police will see their budgets increase by up to £922 million, which is an increase of about 6%.
Alistair Strathern
There is cross-party agreement that the current funding formula is unfair for police in Bedfordshire, with the Conservatives’ own PCC acknowledging that there is simply no meat left on the bone for local police. My constituents are fed up with being told that they have never had it so good, or being fobbed off with one-off grants. Will the Minister commit to a date to finally deliver a fair funding formula for my communities?
Chris Philp
What I will commit to, as far as the people of Bedfordshire are concerned, is an increase in funding of £10.2 million for next year, 2024-25. That is an extra 6.5% compared with this year. They will also have 1,455 police officers. That is about 200 more than Bedfordshire’s police force has ever had at any time in its history.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is not unusual to hear from two Bedfordshire MPs when it comes to the police funding formula, because this goes all the way back to the last Labour Government, but there is a cross-party view in Bedfordshire that our police force is underfunded. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet all Bedfordshire MPs so that we can press the case for increases in funding for Bedfordshire Police?
Chris Philp
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues. As I say, Bedfordshire Police will receive an extra £10.2 million next year—an increase of about 6.5%—which I am sure will be welcome up and down the county, but I am of course happy to meet my hon. Friend whenever he would like.
Mr Speaker
I presume that is all of them, is it Minister? I call the shadow Minister.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Police forces are not being listened to when they raise serious concerns about the funding formula and how it limits their ability to tackle town centre crime. The British Retail Consortium reports that more than 850 acts of violence or abuse against shop workers happen every single day. Everyone has a right to feel safe at work, so when will the Home Secretary accept that retail crime is out of control and accept Labour’s plan to introduce a new law to protect retail workers from violence and actually stand up for shop workers?
Chris Philp
Theft offences are down by 47% since 2010, of course—those are the crime survey figures—but we have recently launched a retail crime action plan, where police are committing to prioritising attendance at incidents of retail crime and always following reasonable lines of inquiry in relation to shoplifting, assaults against shop workers and other forms of offending. In addition, we legislated in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
This Government recognise the impact of neighbourhood crime. It is the crime that most affects people’s confidence—the confidence of individuals, businesses and communities. The strategic response to this is evidence-based and targeted, and getting policing right in this area is incredibly important for maintaining community confidence.
Selaine Saxby
I have seen for myself how successful the Government’s safer streets fund was in Barnstaple, and I am delighted that it will be extended into Ilfracombe this year. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that councils have the funding to help support those schemes?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. I am proud of the fact that, since 2010, neighbourhood crime is down by 51% because of the kind of interventions that she highlighted. I reassure her that we will continue to look at what works, to fund and support, and to make every effort to drive down neighbourhood crime even further.
Simon Jupp
Police numbers across Devon and Cornwall are at record levels and deserve our praise. In a recent survey, my constituents in East Devon said that tackling neighbourhood crime is an absolute priority, as ranging from burglaries to thefts from vehicles. Will my right hon. Friend outline what progress this Conservative Government have made on cracking down on neighbourhood crime?
James Cleverly
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend’s local community is feeling the positive impact of the decisions we have made. Since coming into Government, we have seen serious violence reduced by 26%, and neighbourhood crime down by 27% since the start of this Parliament. We have seen a 36% reduction in domestic burglary, an 18% reduction in vehicle-related theft and a 61% decrease in robbery. We have reduced homicide by 15%, have taken action on drugs and are committed to—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State—I said the same to the Minister—please, you were very slow at the beginning; you will not be slow at the end, I am sure.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On Friday I visited five Co-op stores and every one of them had daily experience of theft, with one losing £35,000-worth of goods over six months and staff experiencing assaults. In light of Labour’s pledge to introduce 13,000 more community police and a law on retail crime, what is the Secretary of State really doing? Clearly his plan is not working.
James Cleverly
We have a retail crime action plan. We have ensured that assaults against shop workers is an aggravating factor and we have made it clear to police forces across the country that we expect them to take action on neighbourhood crime like that and to pursue every reasonable line of inquiry. We are determined to drive down retail crime.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
The objective of the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund is to enhance public safety in a direct and targeted way, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. Since 2020 the Government have invested £150 million across the two funds and the evaluation of round 1 of the safer streets fund, published in January last year, showed that the investment was boosting trust in the police and making communities feel safer.
Ms Rimmer
Does the Minister justify the Government cut of 38% of the funding for projects to reduce violence against women and girls in Merseyside? They have cut £400,000, and one project will have to cease.
Laura Farris
What I can tell the hon. Lady is that under the safer streets fund, £3.9 million has been allocated to Merseyside, including for a project in St Helens town centre. Let me remind her very gently of what that is funding. It has gone towards lighting, signage and improvement to taxi ranks, and one of the most radical measures of all is that it provides women with a free taxi service home, where the safer streets fund will reimburse the taxi driver the money they would otherwise have received, so that a woman does not have to find herself standing at a windy bus stop or walking home.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
We welcome the safer streets fund, which will go some way to supporting the night-time economy that has been badly hit over 14 years. The Government’s efforts to tackle spiking have been completely undermined by the Home Secretary. Spiking is a serious and devastating offence. Why did the Home Secretary think it was appropriate to joke about spiking his own wife, and can he confirm exactly how many drops of Rohypnol he considers to be illegal?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think it has been widely reported that the Home Secretary was making a joke about not being good enough for his wife. The point is that we are the first Government who have done something about spiking—it is not a new offence, and the measures to change the statutory provisions in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could have been taken by the last Labour Government. The reason we have sought to clarify the matter in law is that we do not think that enough victims are coming forward, and the reason there are not enough prosecutions is the time lag in getting effective toxicology reports. That is why we are investing so much money in rapid drinks testing kits, so that hopefully we will be able to get the test done on site on the night, and get more of those offenders behind bars.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
This year, the Home Office will continue to build on our progress on the public priorities: a 36% fall in small boat crossings last year, 86 arrests of small boat pilots, 246 arrests of people smugglers, the biggest-ever international operation resulting in 136 boat seizures and 45 outboard motors being seized, the illegal migration package announced, more than 2,000 county lines drugs lines smashed and the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill to give police leaders more powers. We are relentlessly focused on delivering community safety on behalf of the British people.
Kerry McCarthy
Now that we have the Home Secretary here to answer for himself, can he tell us whether he is aware that the police are receiving more than 560 reports of spiking every month, and in December the Home Office said that the reason the crime is so prevalent is that it is seen as funny and a joke? How can we have any confidence in the Home Secretary to deliver action on spiking when he thinks it is a joke?
James Cleverly
I am the Home Secretary who has actually introduced action on this. In my first week in the job, I visited Holborn police station to see the work of the Metropolitan police in tackling violence against women and girls. I made it clear to the Home Office that my priority was the protection of women and girls. I am taking action on this issue, and I am absolutely determined to continue doing so.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
My hon. Friend will have seen recently a pretty extraordinary report on allegations about extremism and the failure to train properly, and what is going on in universities around the United Kingdom. In one recent problematic case, it was said that it is very hard to define what a terrorist is. We know what a terrorist is, the law knows what a terrorist is and this Government know what a terrorist is, and that is exactly why we have just proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We welcome the proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Five more lives were tragically lost in the channel this weekend. As criminal gangs profit from those dangerous boat crossings, it shows how vital it is to stop them, but we need the Home Office to have a grip. The Home Secretary gave no answer earlier on the 4,000 people he has lost from the Rwanda list. Can he tell us if he has also lost the 35,000 people he has removed from the asylum backlog? How many of them are still in the country?
James Cleverly
I join the right hon. Lady in expressing sadness and condolences for those who lost their lives in the channel. That reinforces the importance of breaking the people-smuggling gangs. The fact is that we are driving down the numbers of people in the backlog: we are processing applications more quickly and ensuring that decisions are made so that those who should not be in this country can be removed either to their own country or a safe third country. That is why the Rwanda Bill is so important, and why we will continue working on these issues.
Yvette Cooper
Returns have dropped 50% since the last Labour Government. The Home Secretary is still not telling us where those missing people are. He appears to have lost thousands of people who may have no right to be in the country, and lost any grip at all. In the ongoing Tory asylum chaos, we have Cabinet Ministers, countless ex-Ministers and the deputy Tory chair all saying that they will oppose the Home Secretary’s policy this week—a policy that we know he and the Prime Minister do not even believe in. If the deputy Tory chair this week votes against the Home Secretary’s policy, will he be sacked, or is the Prime Minister so weak that he has lost control of asylum, lost control of our borders, and lost control of his own party, too?
James Cleverly
Conservative Members of Parliament are absolutely united in our desire to get a grip of this issue. I am not the person who has held up a sign saying, “Refugees welcome”; I am not the person whose colleagues oppose each and every rhetorical flourish. Until the Labour party comes up with a credible plan, I will not take its criticism any more seriously than it deserves.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
We are clear that foreign criminals should be deported wherever possible, and we will continue to do so, in stark contrast to the calls to stop the deportation of foreign national criminals from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that foreign national offender returns have increased by 19% in the last 12 months.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
I think the hon. Gentleman means Labour’s non-existent plan. The fact is that last year, we made 112,000 initial decisions; if the hon. Gentleman has specific cases that he wishes to raise with me as the Minister, I am very happy to have a look at those, but the productivity improvements that we saw last year carry through a lot of learning as we now get on and deal with the backlog. A lot of positive work has gone on, and he should recognise that point.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I join my hon. Friend in commending Humberside police force on the progress it has made, particularly under recent chief constable Lee Freeman. In terms of improving leadership, of course, Lee Freeman is now one of His Majesty’s inspectors, and he can apply what he learned and put into practice in Humberside across the whole country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Tom Pursglove
Of course, we are continuing to work very collaboratively across Government on the response to the situation in Afghanistan, fulfilling the commitments we made to provide that sanctuary in the way that we all want to see. We will say more about those efforts as soon as we are able.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and congratulate her police and crime commissioner on the excellent work she is doing. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have amended the Offences against the Person Act 1861 so that the offence of spiking is captured specifically and comprehensively in law, in part because we want more victims to come forward, but we are told time and again by the police that the most significant barrier to conviction is the length of time between the offence taking place and a toxicology report being received. We are therefore investing in rapid drink testing research, and we hope to bring testing capacity on site.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
UKHospitality estimates that 95% of skilled worker visas that were gained last year would be lost under the new regulations. That is a vital sector for my local economy in Edinburgh and for Scotland, so when will the Government recognise that the revision to the salary level was not sufficient and bring it down to a reasonable level?
Tom Pursglove
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s interpretation of the situation. We should be working in a collaborative cross-Government way, particularly to support domestic employment wherever possible. Comprehensive steps are being taken through the back to work plan to help deliver on that, and there are many people here on other routes who are perfectly able to work and, with the right support, would be doing so. That is precisely where we are going to focus our efforts.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to provide advice to police forces across the country to help them support communities during the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is right to ask that question, because sadly, we have seen an absolutely vile upsurge in antisemitism on our streets. We have seen people who claim to be speaking out for equality and justice actually defending people who take slaves, who violate women’s and girls’ rights, and who here in our own country make the Jewish community feel uncomfortable. That is exactly why this Government have committed £18 million to the Community Security Trust. Very sadly, we have also had to commit £7 million to academic security, because there has also been a massive increase in antisemitism in universities. We are combating all of that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How many times must a demonstration in the same cause be repeated, week in and week out, before the well-funded organisers become liable to pay for at least part of the policing costs?
James Cleverly
Of course, we recognise that there is legitimacy to public protests. We also recognise that the unprecedented and unwarranted pressure that this is putting on policing around the country is having an impact on communities. My view is that the organisers have made their point, and repeating it does not strengthen their argument. Unfortunately, we are also seeing some deeply distasteful people weaving themselves in among those protesters, who are protesting on issues that they feel passionately about, but whose good will is being abused by others.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary urgently meet his hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and me to speak about why it is that, although the whole House passed the Public Order Act 2023 with an amendment to ensure safe access zones for women using abortion clinics, this is now subject to a consultation that would gut the legislation? Can he meet us urgently? The consultation is due to end on 22 January, and it would not actually do what all MPs in this House voted for.
James Cleverly
If the hon. Lady writes to me on this issue, I will endeavour to find out the details of the point she has made.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Last week, the Home Secretary produced a report on safe and legal routes to comply with section 61 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the amendment I tabled last year. It is very long and generous on the existing legal routes, but can he tell me how my 16-year-old orphan from an east African country with links to the UK, who is a genuine asylum seeker, will be helped to come legally and safely to the UK by what the Government have published so far?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is a very passionate advocate on this issue, and we had a conversation last week about this very point. The fact is that, since 2015, we have welcomed over half a million people through our safe and legal routes. We are introducing the cap precisely because we want to see that generosity extended in the years ahead, but the pressures of illegal migration in particular make that very challenging and difficult. This is precisely the sort of issue I want to study with him as we move forward with the cap, to make sure that we continue to help the most vulnerable people from around the world, working particularly with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others.
Defending the UK and Allies
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I would like to update the House on the action that we took on Thursday night against Houthi military targets in Yemen.
Since 19 November, Iran-backed Houthis have launched over 25 illegal and unacceptable attacks on commercial shipping in the Red sea, and on 9 January they mounted a direct attack against British and American warships. They fired on our ships and our sailors—it was the biggest attack on the Royal Navy for decades—and so we acted. We did so in self-defence, consistent with the UN charter, and to uphold freedom of navigation, as Britain has always done.
Alongside the United States, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, we ordered the RAF to strike two Houthi military facilities in Yemen. I want to be clear that these were limited strikes. They were carefully targeted at launch sites for drones and ballistic missiles to degrade the Houthis’ capacity to make further attacks on international shipping. I can tell the House today that our initial assessment is that all 13 planned targets were destroyed. At the drone and cruise missile base in Bani, nine buildings were successfully hit. A further three buildings were hit at Abbs airfield, along with a cruise missile launcher caught in the open. We have seen no evidence thus far of civilian casualties, which we took great care to avoid. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible bravery and professionalism of all our servicemen and women.
The need to maximise the security and effectiveness of the operation meant that it was not possible to bring this matter to the House in advance, but we took care to brief Members—including of course you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition—before the strikes took place, and I have come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I do not take decisions on the use of force lightly. That is why I stress that this action was taken in self-defence. It was limited, not escalatory. It was a necessary and proportionate response to a direct threat to UK vessels, and therefore to the UK itself.
Let me be absolutely clear why the Royal Navy is in the Red sea. It is there as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian, protecting freedom of navigation as a fundamental tenet of international law. The Houthis’ attacks on international shipping have put innocent lives at risk. They have held one crew hostage for almost two months, and they are causing growing economic disruption. Global commerce cannot operate under such conditions. Containers and tankers are having to take a 5,000-mile detour around the Cape of Good Hope. That pushes up prices and imperils the passage of goods, foods and medicines that the British people and others rely on.
We have attempted to resolve this through diplomacy. After numerous international calls for the attacks to stop, a coalition of countries gave the Houthis a clear and unambiguous warning two weeks ago. Last week, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the attacks and highlighting the right of nations to defend their vessels and preserve freedom of navigation, yet the Houthis continued on their reckless path.
We should not fall for the Houthis’ malign narrative that this is about Israel and Gaza—they target ships from around the world. We continue to work towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza and to get more aid to civilians. We also continue to support a negotiated settlement in Yemen’s civil war, but I want to be very clear that this action is completely unrelated to those issues. It is a direct response to the Houthis’ attacks on international shipping. We should also recognise the risks of inaction. It would weaken international security and the rule of law, further damage freedom of navigation and the global economy, and send a dangerous message that British vessels and British interests are fair game.
There is another point here, which is often overlooked. The Houthis’ attacks risk worsening the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen itself. The UK helps to feed around 100,000 Yemenis every month, with aid arriving via the very sea routes that the Houthis have in their sights. The threats to shipping must cease. Illegally detained vessels and crews must be released, and we remain prepared to back our words with actions.
But dealing with that threat does not detract from our other international commitments; rather, it strengthens our determination to uphold fundamental UN principles. If our adversaries think they can distract us from helping Ukraine by threatening international security elsewhere, they could not be more wrong. On Friday, I travelled to Kyiv to meet President Zelensky and address the Ukrainian Parliament. I took a message from this House to the Rada that we will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he will not stop there, and other malign actors will be emboldened. That is why Ukraine’s security is our security. That is why the UK will stay the course, and it is why I am confident that our partners share our resolve.
Far from our resolve faltering, our military support to Ukraine will increase this year. We will provide the biggest single package of defence aid to Ukraine since the war began, worth £2.5 billion. That will include more air defence equipment, more anti-tank weapons, more long-range missiles, thousands more rounds of ammunition and artillery shells, training for thousands more Ukrainian servicemen and women, and the single largest package of advanced drones given to Ukraine by any nation. All of that is on top of what we have already provided to support Ukraine.
In total, since the war began, the United Kingdom will have provided almost £12 billion of aid to Ukraine. We were the first to train Ukrainian troops, the first in Europe to provide lethal weapons, the first to commit main battle tanks, the first to provide long-range missiles, and now we are the first to keep the promise made at last year’s NATO summit, alongside 30 other countries, to provide new bilateral security commitments. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and NATO will be stronger with Ukraine in it, but these commitments will help bridge the gap until that day comes.
Under the new agreement that we signed with President Zelensky, we are building Ukraine’s military capabilities; and if Russia ever invades Ukraine again, we will provide swift and sustained assistance, including modern equipment across land, air and sea. Together with our allies, the UK will be there from the first moment until the last. For all of this, I bring a message of thanks from President Zelensky to the British people. Today, I hope that the House will join me in sending a message back to the Ukrainian people: that we stand together as one in support of these firm commitments. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We are building a new partnership with Ukraine, designed to last 100 years or more. Yes, it is about defence and security, but it is also about trade, investment, culture and more. There could be no more powerful sign of our unique bond than Ukraine’s decision to adopt English as the language of business and diplomacy. So, through the British Council, we are going to fund English language training for the Ukrainian people.
In dangerous times, we are investing in defence, hardening our critical infrastructure and building our alliances. We are resolute in our principles: international security; the rule of law; and freedom to determine your own future. An attack on those principles is an attack on everything that we believe in and on which our lives and livelihoods depend. As the home of parliamentary democracy and a leader in collective security, it is our responsibility to defend those principles and to defend our people. That is who we are. That is what Britain does and will always do. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for the secure briefing last week and for an advance copy of his statement? Let me reiterate that Labour backs this targeted action to reinforce maritime security in the Red sea. We strongly condemn the Houthi attacks, which are targeting commercial ships of all nationalities, putting civilians and military personnel—including British forces—in serious danger. The Houthi attacks are unacceptable and illegal and, if left unaddressed, could lead to a devastating rise in the cost of essential food in some of the poorest countries.
The international community clearly stands against the Houthi attacks. Alongside the UK and the US, four other countries were involved in non-operational support, over a dozen nations are part of the maritime protection force in the Red sea, and many others support the recent UN Security Council resolution, which condemns the Houthi attacks in the strongest possible terms. The UK strikes were limited and targeted, and did everything possible to protect civilian lives. That is a proportionate response.
Military action must of course always be underpinned by a clear strategy, and it is the role of this House to ask the right questions. So I ask the Prime Minister: what confidence does he have that his stated objectives have been met? What process will he follow in the face of continued Houthi attacks? What efforts are under way to maintain the support of the international community? Will he confirm that he stands by the parliamentary convention that, where possible, military interventions by the UK Government—particularly if they are part of a sustained campaign—should be brought before the House? Scrutiny is not the enemy of strategy.
While we back the action taken last week, these strikes still do bring risk, and we must avoid escalation across the middle east. Will the Prime Minister tell us how the UK will work with international partners so that our rightful actions are not used as an excuse by those who seek to expand violence throughout the wider region, or indeed reanimate the conflict in Yemen?
None the less, our armed forces across the region are showing the highest professionalism and bravery, both in defending commercial shipping and in this targeted action. We thank them. We are proud of them. They continue to show that Britain is a force for good, as does the UK’s unwavering unity in support of Ukraine and against Russian aggression.
On the Labour Benches, we have backed all military support for Ukraine, so again we back the Prime Minister’s announcement of £2.5 billion for Ukraine next year, and we strongly support the agreement on security co-operation, which will give Ukraine vital confidence to plan for the year ahead. I hope that it becomes a template for other allies to follow and that, in time, Ukraine will become a full member of NATO. To those listening in Kyiv, Moscow or elsewhere in the world, let me be clear: whoever is in government in Britain, the UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Returning to the middle east, it is now over 100 days since the brutal events of 7 October. Israel’s right to self-defence is fundamental, as is its duty to comply with international law. The longer the conflict in Gaza rages, the greater the risk of escalation throughout the entire region. On the Israel-Lebanon border, we must urge constraint. We must make it crystal clear to all parties that the UK does not support this conflict extending further in Lebanon.
Within Israel and Palestine, in the west bank, settler violence must stop immediately, and in Gaza we need a humanitarian truce now—not as a short pause, but as the first step on a road away from violence. The need for a sustainable ceasefire is clear to stop the killing of innocent civilians, to create the space for the return of all the hostages, and to provide urgent humanitarian relief to protect against disease and ward off a devastating famine. From that first step, we can begin a bigger push towards peace, a permanent end to the fighting and a lasting political solution. The hope of a two-state solution is fragile, but it is still there and we must fight for it, just as we must remain resolute in the face of aggression that threatens global security, whether in Europe or in the Red sea.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support for the action that we have taken. He is absolutely right to highlight the international coalition that, over recent weeks, has called out the Houthis’ behaviour, culminating in the UN Security Council resolution strongly condemning the attacks, which he rightly referenced. Our stated aim was to degrade and disrupt the Houthis’ capability to launch attacks on civilian shipping. As I indicated, our initial assessment is that our strikes have been successful in the specific targets that were selected. Obviously, that is an initial assessment, but that remains our case at the moment.
More generally, we want a reduction of tensions in the region and a restoration of stability. That is our stated aim. It is incumbent on the Houthis not to escalate and not to continue what are illegal and unprovoked attacks on civilian shipping that put innocent lives at risk and damage the global economy and the prices that British citizens and others pay for their everyday goods, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly pointed out.
I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was necessary to strike at speed, as he acknowledged, to protect the security of the operations. That is in accordance with the convention. I remain committed to that convention, and would always look to follow appropriate processes and procedures, and act in line with precedent—he will know that there were strikes in 2015 and 2018, when a similar process was followed.
I also provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the assurance that he rightly asked for about our international engagement, because there will be malign forces out there that seek to distort our action and to turn it into something that it is not. It is important that we engage with our allies and others in the region, so that they understand what we did and why. I provide him with the assurance that we have done that and will continue to do that, because it is important that there is no linkage between these actions and anything else that is happening. This is purely and simply to respond in self-defence to illegal attacks by the Houthis on commercial shipping.
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s support for the announcements we made with regard to Ukraine. He is right to point out the importance of the security commitments we signed. Thirty countries at the Vilnius summit promised to do so. This House should be proud that the United Kingdom is again leading by being the first country to sign such a commitment, which I believe will serve as a template for others to follow. I can tell him of the enormous appreciation in Ukraine for the UK doing that, so that there is long-term certainty for the Ukrainian people of our support, as well as further deterrence to Russia and others against future aggression.
In conclusion, the confluence of these two events over the same 24 hours serves to highlight the increasing threats we face as a country. The global environment is becoming more challenging and more unstable. It is incumbent on us to respond to those challenges with increased investment in defence, as we are doing, and by strengthening our alliances, because ultimately we must defend the principles of international law, freedom and democracy, and freedom of navigation that we all hold dear. This Government will always stand ready to do that and to protect the British people.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister was clearly absolutely justified to respond as he did, particularly after the direct attack against HMS Diamond, but given that at the time of the Falklands campaign we had 35 frigates and destroyers and were spending 4.5% of GDP on defence, whereas both those figures can be cut in half to describe our situation today, does he agree that we certainly should not be reducing the numbers of frigates or destroyers, and that we certainly should not be mothballing, or otherwise decommissioning, our amphibious assault ships?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend that our intention is to increase defence spending from where it currently is up to 2.5% when circumstances allow. It is worth reminding the House that we have consistently over the past decade been the second largest spender on defence in NATO—larger than 20 other countries combined. Our plans will continue to provide that leadership.
Within that, there is a very strong equipment plan, underpinned by the £24 billion extra that the Ministry of Defence received in its most recent settlement, which for the Royal Navy includes Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates. With regard to the specific vessels my right hon. Friend talks about, the Defence Secretary has asked the First Sea Lord to plan how the Royal Marines’ excellent work can be taken forward, so that they have the capabilities they need to continue their work and the ability to be deployed globally. When that process concludes, the Defence Secretary will of course update the House.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I would like to begin by echoing the Prime Minister’s sentiments in relation to Ukraine. All of us on the SNP Benches remain firmly united behind its struggle against Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
When Sir Walter Scott wrote that in war both sides lose, I am not quite sure he had factored into the equation the likes of the Houthis, because they are, of course, the fundamentalist’s fundamentalists. Unperturbed by being on the receiving end of Saudi Arabia’s bombing for many years, they are, the perceived wisdom would suggest, not just content but perhaps even quite happy to be on the receiving end of American bombs.
That context poses an enormous question for all of us in this House as to what comes next. If, as has been suggested by the Houthis’ actions over the course of the last 12 hours or so, the message that we sought to send has not been received, what do we intend to do? What is the plan? What is the Prime Minister’s strategy? Will he come to the Dispatch Box and, unlike his predecessors in relation to middle east conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, lay out when and how far he is willing to go in relation to military action? Clearly we need to understand his Government’s strategy in this conflict, because we cannot have an escalation that leads to further regional instability. While we would all agree, quite rightly, that we should not fall for the Houthis’ narrative that this is directly related to the conflict in Israel and Gaza, we cannot escape the fact that a ceasefire in Gaza is essential for that wider regional stability.
Let me finally say that, although the Prime Minister has sought to defend his decision not to come to the House last week, it is clear that the House should have been recalled. It is what the public would have expected, and I urge him to do better in future.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Ukraine and his support for our approach.
Obviously I will not speculate on future action. What we conducted was intended as a single, limited action, and of course we hope that the Houthis will step back and end their reckless and destabilising attacks, but we will not hesitate to protect our security and our interests where required. We would, of course, follow the correct procedures, as I believe we did in this case.
Although the hon. Gentleman is right to ask questions, we should also recognise the risks of inaction, because doing nothing would absolutely weaken international security and the rule of law, would further damage the freedom of navigation and the global economy, and—perhaps most important—would send the very dangerous message that British vessels and British interests are fair game, and that is simply unacceptable.
Of course I am happy to answer questions about the situation in Israel and Gaza, but the House should make it very clear to the outside world that there is no link between what we have done last week and the situation there. This was a specific action in self-defence against the Houthis, who are conducting illegal strikes against innocent civilian shipping. That has nothing to do with what is going on in Israel and Gaza, and we must never let anyone think that this House believes that there is a link.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary for his excellent and wide-ranging speech this morning, in which he rightly pointed out that we face dangerous times. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that, while how we spend defence money is important, it is vital and without doubt that defence needs a great deal more money—more than 2.5% and these arbitrary targets—if our brave men and women are to fight a sustained conflict in the years ahead?
The Prime Minister
I agree that the Defence Secretary made an excellent speech earlier. He highlighted, as I did, the fact that defence spending has consistently met our NATO obligation. We have been the second largest defence spender in NATO, and in the last settlement defence received the largest increase—£24 billion—since the end of the cold war. My hon. Friend is right that the threats we face are increasing. It is right that we invest to protect the British people against those threats, and that is exactly what the Government are doing and will continue to do.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
While not having a vote in this House is regrettable, Liberal Democrats support limited strikes against the Houthis to open international shipping lanes, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that this region is a tinderbox. We have seen attacks on US soldiers in Syria and Iraq, the terrorism of Islamic State in Iran, the rockets of Hezbollah, and the Israeli strikes in Beirut—all stemming from the horrifying conflict in Israel and Gaza. Can the Prime Minister tell us what conversations he has had with our NATO and European allies, but also with leaders of Gulf countries, to ensure that these limited strikes remain limited?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we are engaging extensively with our international partners, including our Gulf allies. I spoke to the President of Egypt just last week, and will continue to do so. Let me say again, however, that it is important that no one takes away the idea that this House believes, on any side, that there is a link between direct action in self-defence against the Houthis and the situation in Israel and Gaza. They are entirely distinct. We will do everything we can to bring more aid into Gaza, and to make sure that we work hard for a sustainable ceasefire. That is separate from our ability and necessary duty to defend our interests and our people.
Sir Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for his firm and principled response to events in the Red sea, but is it not clear from Iran’s support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis that it will do anything to stop a lasting peace between the Arab states and Israel because the Iranian regime believes that Israel should not exist at all? Would it not be a real defeat for Iran to see it isolated by a meaningful resolution of the Palestinian issue and the supercharging of the Abraham accords in a process to bring peace and stability to the region, all underpinned by an international resolve to confront Iran’s proxies wherever they threaten our interests and values?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent remarks and for his work on the Abraham accords, which have done much to bring more peace and stability to the region. He is right to say that the behaviour of the Iranian regime poses a significant threat to the safety and security of the UK and our allies and ensures regional instability where we want to see more peace and stability. I can assure him that we are keeping abreast of all the risks in the area. That is why, for example, the Royal Navy last year and the year before continued to interdict illegal arms smuggling by the Iranians to the Houthis. We will continue to keep in close contact with our allies to take all the measures we can to protect our people and ensure that the Iranians’ destabilising influence in the region is reduced to the best extent possible.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He has been crystal clear on the need to degrade the capabilities of this terrorist organisation, the Houthis, that are causing havoc in the Red sea. He will also know that Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world and is suffering a mass humanitarian crisis with over 21 million people in need of humanitarian aid and support. What will he do to ensure that the civilians of Yemen are not again engulfed in a mass humanitarian catastrophe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising an incredibly important point. I reassure her and the House—she will know this from her own experience—that we are steadfast in our support to the Yemeni people as one of the largest donors of lifesaving aid to the UN appeal. We are also committing, I believe, £88 million in this forthcoming year—over the last several years we have committed £1 billion—and that will help to provide food for at least 100,000 people every month and deliver lifesaving healthcare through 400 facilities. The Yemeni people are suffering and we are doing everything we can to alleviate that suffering.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Earlier this century, following threats of access to the Suez canal from Somali piracy, the international community united with a widely based taskforce to successfully suppress it. Now that the Houthis are threatening seafarers’ lives and international navigation—along with the trade and jobs that depend on it—will the Prime Minister seek the widest possible international taskforce to deal with that? Will he also support the people of south Yemen, who want nothing to do with these terrorists?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the necessity of building international coalitions, and I am pleased to say that that is happening. Operation Prosperity Guardian, which we are proud to be a partner of, is upholding freedom of navigation in the region. As has been mentioned, the UN Security Council resolution that was passed on 10 January is instructive in this sense. It condemns in the strongest terms the Houthi attacks, demands that they immediately cease all attacks and notes the right of member states to act in accordance with international law to defend their vessels. The right hon. Gentleman will also have seen the statement published by around a dozen of our allies before and after the strikes, which I hope will reassure him that there is broad international support for what we are doing and for the calls on the Houthis to desist.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I represent a constituency with a proud maritime tradition. Families are anxious about commercial shipping staff whose jobs take them through the Red sea, and a scramble towards military action is endangering those UK seafarers. Maritime unions are calling not just for more protection but for co-ordinated diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis. After today’s attack on a ship, can the Prime Minister explain to seafarers how dropping bombs will lead to a de-escalation of a situation that is already endangering their safety?
The Prime Minister
That question is quite extraordinary. It is Houthi rockets that are endangering the lives of seafarers in the region. We have seen shipping companies welcome the action we are taking, because they are keen to see security and stability restored to the region. That is what we are aiming to do: to disrupt, destabilise and degrade the Houthis’ ability to carry out these attacks and to restore stability to region. That is very much the focus of our attention. We are acting in self-defence to protect the lives of seafarers, not endanger them. The right hon. Lady would do well to call out the Houthis to stop what they are doing.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international law case for his Government’s action in the Red sea is, unusually in my experience, relatively straightforward? Does he also agree that the next significant challenge is to maintain and enhance a multinational consensus on deterring and combating more of these attacks, if they occur, and that acting in compliance with and respect for international law assists us in that task?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I hope he will have seen the published legal summary of our advice on this issue. This proportionate and necessary action was taken lawfully to respond to attacks by the Houthis, and it was the only feasible means to do so. The UK is, as he knows, permitted under international law to use force in such circumstances. It is right that we have due regard for the legal advice in such situations, and I reassure him that we will continue always to have regard to it. While we fight to protect international law, it is important that we also follow it ourselves.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
According to the YouGov poll taken last month, 71% of the British public want a ceasefire in Israel-Gaza, yet last week the Government launched airstrikes in the Red sea in escalation of the situation in the middle east. Although the Government were not under any constitutional obligation to have a parliamentary vote on that military action, or to abide by the result of any such vote, does the Prime Minister believe that the Government have a duty to the British public and the parliamentary community, which represents the British people, in building political support for such military action?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition rightly said we need to ensure that malign actors do not try to distort what we have done for their own purposes. I gently say to the hon. Lady that to conflate and link our action against the Houthis with the situation in Israel-Gaza just gives ammunition to our enemies who seek to make things worse in the region.
We acted in self-defence, and I have explained the reasons, the processes that we followed and the accountability that I have to Parliament, which I am now discharging. Separately, we will, of course, work very hard to bring humanitarian aid into Gaza and to try to bring about the sustainable ceasefire that we all want to see.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for prosecuting this military action. As a matter of law it was highly necessary and clearly proportionate, and his legal position is watertight. Countries around the world depend on that route but, as usual, it is the British and the Americans who do something about protecting it. However, there are reports that more Houthi attacks are taking place this afternoon. Will he take more military action, if necessary?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support. Of course, he will understand that I will not speculate on future action. This was intended as a limited single action, and we hope the Houthis will now step back and end their destabilising attacks. As I said earlier, we will not hesitate to protect our security, our people and our interests, where required. If we do so, we will, of course, follow the correct procedures and precedent, as we did in this case.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right that Ukraine needs military support, but it also needs to be rebuilt. Last year, the British Government opposed proposals that we should seize $300 billion-worth of Russian state assets sitting in banks around the world, including in the UK, and use them to rebuild Ukraine. However, I note that the Foreign Secretary said in the United States of America in December that he is now arguing that we should be able to seize those assets. Should we not legislate to ensure Putin pays for the reconstruction of Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
I am not entirely sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the situation. I agree that Russia must pay for the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine and I have been clear about that. On the G7 leaders call at the end of last year, I was the one who raised this issue and, as a result, the G7 have collectively tasked Finance Ministers with exploring all lawful routes to ensure that Russian assets are made available for that purpose. We are working at pace to identify all options for seizing those assets, and I reassure him that we are ensuring, in conjunction with our international allies, that the measures will be safe, robust and compliant with the international rule of law. Again, it is the UK, together with the US, that has been leading that conversation in the G7.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Houthi attacks on shipping are a global problem, and it is right that we acted, alongside our partners. Where close allies did not participate in those airstrikes, we still need them to act and act alongside us. Will we encourage them to redouble their efforts to interdict arms smuggling from Iran into Yemen and therefore help to degrade further the military capacity of the Houthis?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and we will continue to work with our allies. I hope he will have seen the statement put out by about a dozen of our allies after the strikes reiterating their support for what we have done. He will know that there was non-operational support from a handful of other countries, together with the much larger coalition of nations that are involved, in different ways, in Operation Prosperity Guardian. Where other countries can play a part in interdicting Iranian shipments, bringing stability to the region and protecting international shipping, we of course want to work with them. The Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are having those conversations as we speak.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
We live in most challenging times, with instability in the middle east, Europe and Africa. It is important that we have the right kind of leadership and response. We must make sure that our international shipping routes remain open. What is the Prime Minister’s assessment of the degradation of the Houthis’ capabilities after the action last week? On Ukraine, we must stand united in this House in saying that the Russians must be defeated for the aggression they have shown. We should remain together, united, in saying once again, “Slava Ukraini”. Lastly, the Prime Minister talks about a sustainable settlement in Gaza. It is important that we recognise the scale of the humanitarian suffering, so may I ask him for an update on what we are doing to ensure that in Gaza we deliver peace and security, with the hope of a better world as we come through 2024?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the action in Ukraine. Let me touch on his last point, because I agree with him; we are, of course, concerned about the devastating impact of the conflict in Gaza on the civilian population—too many people have lost their lives already—and there is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support into Gaza. I am pleased that the UK is playing a leading role: we have tripled our aid. Recently, the Foreign Secretary appointed a humanitarian envoy to the region to address some of the blockages, and we delivered our first maritime shipment of aid into Egypt—more than 80 tonnes of new aid. When I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I impressed upon him the importance of not only increasing the flow of trucks, but, crucially, if we can, opening up extra crossings into Gaza, so that we can increase the flow of aid. We will continue to press on Israel to do that, so that we can bring more relief to people who are suffering a great deal.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for a clear statement. It is reported that the drones being used by the Houthis are being helped by Iran. The American Enterprise Institute has reported that Russia has given $900 million to Iran for drones. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that we are doing everything we can in this country to make sure that none of that money is going through the UK financial system?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell my hon. Friend that she is right and we agree with the US assessment that Iran has directly supplied and directly supported Houthi attacks in the Red sea, providing intelligence, especially to enable their targeting of vessels, and providing them with missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. She is right to say that we should do everything we can to prevent that, and I reassure her on that. She will know about the measures we have taken over the past two years on financial transparency and beneficial ownership registers, which allow us to crack down on economic crime and money laundering. Physically, the Royal Navy is involved in interdicting shipments, as it has done successfully last year and the year before. It will continue to have a presence in the region so that we can disrupt those illegal arms flows.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
It is a critical time internationally, but we have a staffing crisis in our Navy, so can we do more to boost the recruitment of sailors by offering science, technology, engineering and maths qualifications? When will we see our Navy back up to full strength?
The Prime Minister
Our Royal Navy is one of the top five in the world. It is capable of operating in all the world’s oceans simultaneously and we are one of only two countries to operate fifth-generation jets from the sea, so we should be confident and proud of our Royal Navy. As I have said, we are investing in more equipment and capability going into the future. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight some of the recruitment challenges—the Defence Secretary highlighted some of them the other week—but we are doubling down on all our initiatives to ensure that our armed forces have the staff they need for the future, and that those personnel have the equipment and supplies they need to do their jobs effectively.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I fully support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I welcome both his statement about the action he took on the Houthi and the other part of the statement about Ukraine, because we must support Ukraine and its future.
On the reality of the Houthi, we know that Iran has supported, has supplied and continues to direct the Houthi in their attacks; it supported and directed Hamas in their brutal attacks in October; and it has armed and directs Hezbollah on a regular basis and tells them what to do, through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We understand all that, so why are we still reluctant to proscribe the IRGC, which is responsible for so much of the co-ordination of that work? There are still two Iranian banks in the City of London feeding money to those terrible organisations.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he personally does in supporting Ukraine. I agree with him about the risks that Iran poses to the UK and to regional stability. We have sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety. The National Security Act 2023 implements new measures to protect the British public—it has been described by intelligence chiefs as “game changing”—particularly in tackling espionage and foreign interference, with tougher powers to arrest and detain people suspected of involvement in state threats.
As my right hon. Friend will know, we do not routinely comment on proscription, but I hope he will have seen the statement today about our proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir, on which I know he and colleagues have rightly been focused in previous years.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Some 17 million people in the region are living in hunger and food shortage, the people of Yemen have been bombarded by weapons supplied by Britain from Saudi Arabia for years, and we have a dreadful conflict going on in Gaza, where there are 30,000 people dead or missing. Where is the comprehensive plan by the western nations to try to bring about a comprehensive peace across the whole region, rather than pumping more and more weapons and money into more and more conflicts that will get worse? Does the Prime Minister have any hope for the future that there will be a lessening of conflict, rather than the present, very rapid increase in it?
The Prime Minister
I do have hope. As we and others take action to degrade and disrupt the capability of those who are malign actors in the region, that will give the space for positive voices to build the peace that we all want to see and to allow everyone to live side by side with dignity, security and opportunity.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out some of the humanitarian strife that people are suffering. We should be proud of our record in this House. We have committed over £1 billion of aid to Yemen since the conflict began in 2014. We are currently providing food to at least 100,000 people every month, as well as life-saving healthcare to 400 facilities. Yemen is entirely reliant for food on imports, largely by sea. The Houthi attacks serve to prolong the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people and disrupt the very supply of the food that the right hon. Gentleman, I and everyone in the House wants to see delivered to those people.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Yemen has been close to my heart, as it has been for the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), because we were both born there. I thank the Prime Minister for all the humanitarian aid that is going there. What discussions has he had with the Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council? What impact does he think the strikes will have on the fragile peace process?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in the region. As a UN Security Council penholder on Yemen, the UK is continuing to use our diplomatic and political influence to support UN efforts to bring lasting peace to Yemen through an inclusive political settlement. We support the Saudi-Houthi negotiations and, indeed, the deal that was announced in December last year by the UN special envoy for Yemen, whom my hon. Friend will know. Ministers continue to be in dialogue, particularly with our Saudi partners, so that we can try to bring to the Yemeni people the peace and stability that they deserve.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for stating today that, with the recent strikes, the UK sought to uphold international law and seeks to protect civilians. May I ask what the Government’s strategy is to prevent escalation? Also, last week the Government confirmed that there are currently no RAF aid flights or Royal Navy deliveries planned to take essential aid into Egypt and onwards to Gaza—why?
The Prime Minister
I am not entirely sure that the hon. Lady is right on that. We remain committed to increasing the amount of aid that we get into Gaza. We have tripled the financial amount and, as I have said, we recently saw our first maritime shipment of aid into Egypt by the UK military ship RFA Lyme Bay. The hon. Lady will be aware that there are considerable blockages and logistical challenges on the ground, which we are working to help to resolve. That is also why we are putting pressure on the Israelis—I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu about this—to open up additional crossings such as Kerem Shalom. That will help us to increase the flow of aid into the region, and we absolutely want to see that happen.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Britain has a proud tradition of defending waterways, which is vital for all of us who care about humanitarian crises and the delivery of aid. At the moment, we are seeing Russia trying to stop the movement of grain through Turkey, and the potential of the Houthis to shut off access to the Red sea. It is vital that we keep those international waterways open, because otherwise we will face a catastrophic situation and starvation across many African countries.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly about the Black sea. He will recall that Ukraine’s grain exports disproportionally go to some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. Russia started a campaign of targeting that civilian infrastructure last year. With our support, Ukraine has been able to push back the Black sea fleet and degrade Russia’s major combatant vessels. With the support of the City of London in improving the insurance for ships, we have now seen 300 ships export 10 million tonnes of cargo through the new Ukraine corridor. That highlights the importance of what my right hon. Friend said. Again, in this House, we should be proud of the leading role that the UK has had in making that possible.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Houthis are an antisemitic terrorist group that have caused havoc in Yemen over the past decade, starting a civil war that has killed more than 350,000 people. Their slogan includes the lines, “Death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews”. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the shameful pro-Houthi chanting that we saw at many protests in the UK over the weekend?
The Prime Minister
I commend the hon. Lady for her remarks and I wholeheartedly agree with her. We will absolutely not tolerate that kind of language on our streets. We have been crystal clear about that. We have said to the police that they should take all decisive action against those who promote and encourage terrorism and, indeed, those who incite hatred and division on our streets. I hope the hon. Lady will have seen today’s proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is another organisation that uses language similar to that she describes. Its promotion of terrorism is rooted in antisemitic ideology. I hope that gives her reassurance that we will confront this and stamp it out wherever we see it, because it is not in accordance with British values. Jewish people in this country deserve to be able to walk our streets in freedom and security.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision last week to take military action in the Red sea, and the substantial increase in aid for Ukraine. Will he take this opportunity to reiterate and make it absolutely clear that it would be utterly against the national interest, and indeed the security interests of the world, for the British Prime Minister to be hobbled in the decisions that he makes about taking military action by the need to consult in advance? Does he not agree that the responsibility that he bears is intrinsic to his seals of office and should not be given up?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. In this case, it was necessary to strike with speed and protect the security of the operations. I believe that that is in accordance with the convention and, indeed, precedent on these matters. My hon. Friend is right: the Government need to protect the security interests of the United Kingdom. That means that sometimes we have to act decisively, quickly and securely. Fundamentally, we need to maintain the prerogative powers that allow the Executive to act in such emergencies, but of course I am responsible for those decisions, I do not take them lightly, and Parliament is responsible for holding me to account for them.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Past mistakes in the middle east should have taught this House that military intervention that starts out as limited can quickly escalate, risking a sequence of events far larger and more terrible, and even risk dragging us into war. It is for that reason that, according to reports in The Times, Foreign Office officials were “incredibly nervous” about last week’s military assault in Yemen. Driving the region’s instability is Israel’s horrifying assault on Gaza, which has now lasted more than 100 days. Rather than giving Israel the green light to continue its brutal bombardment of Gaza, and risking a wider conflict, will the Prime Minister seek to de-escalate the situation and call for an immediate ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
Perhaps the hon. Lady would do well to call on Hamas and the Houthis to de-escalate the situation.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Too many people give a free pass to the terrorists who perpetrated the worst murder of Jews. We have just seen an example of that, just as we saw examples of it on our streets this weekend, where people screamed, “Yemen, Yemen, turn another ship around”—completely unacceptable. One thing that links the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas is their genocidal intent towards Jews and their hatred of everything that we stand for in the western democracies, which is why it is incumbent on us to defend those values. I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has said, and urge him once more to ensure that our police take action against those on our streets who openly support terrorism.
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that the police have extensive powers to arrest those who incite violence or racial hatred. Of course, we keep all laws under review. We are working with the police on whether we need to strengthen those powers, but I have been absolutely clear that there must be zero tolerance for antisemitism and any forms of racism. We will not stand by when we see it happen, and the police should ensure that those who do that face the full force of the law.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the purpose of the air strikes in Yemen was to send a message, but the message that we intend to send is not necessarily the message that gets received. The message seems to have been sent to many in the region that the UK is intervening in the war very clearly on the side of Israel. What plans do the Government have to manage and contain the escalation that is likely to ensue? Simply proclaiming that the activity was intended to be limited, not escalatory, does not make it so.
The Prime Minister
That is why we took this action as a last resort, after extensive attempts at diplomacy, including a UN Security Council resolution. The hon. Lady could help, because this Parliament could speak with one voice so that the outside world and our allies in the region know that this has nothing to do with Israel and Gaza, and everything to do with our self-defence.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Diverting shipping via the cape puts a financial burden on us all, none more so than the Egyptians, due to reduced traffic through the Suez canal. Will my right hon. Friend explain what discussions he has had with his Egyptian counterparts on their involvement in the multinational response?
The Prime Minister
I spoke to President Sisi just last week. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the economic impact on people around the world: 15% of global trade passes through this corridor, and we are already starting to see the impact of rerouting on the prices of shipping, and ultimately on the prices that British people will pay for their goods. My primary conversation with the President at the moment, though, is about increasing the flow of aid into Gaza, where Egypt is doing an extraordinary amount. We will continue to give it all the support that it needs.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister said that the stated aims of this action were to degrade the capacity to strike. We have had confirmation that today another cargo ship—a US cargo ship—has been struck by a ballistic missile. There have been explosions at the Yemeni port of Hodeidah. The Defence Secretary told the media this morning that this Government were prepared to
“take the decisions that need to be taken”
if the attacks continue. Given the news that the attacks have continued, will the Prime Minister set out what those decisions are and how he intends to involve Parliament in that process?
The Prime Minister
It would not be right to speculate on future action, but what I can say is that our strikes were intended to degrade the Houthi capability and, as I said, they did—initial assessments show that they effectively destroyed 13 targets at two sites, including drones, an airfield and a cruise missile launcher.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yemen with my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), we have seen at first hand how this brutal, misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic terrorist regime, backed by Iran, presiding over the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis and responsible for throwing tens of thousands of young men to their deaths on the frontline, have acted. Since 2022, they have benefited from a tentative ceasefire. Is this not a lesson in how sustainable ceasefires cannot be achieved with terrorist organisations unless and until they have been deprived of their arms and have succumbed to democratic legitimacy?
The Prime Minister
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on Yemen. I say very simply that I agree with him and he makes an excellent point.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I appreciate why the Prime Minister is trying not to link this to Gaza, but the reality is that the longer the Gaza war goes on, the greater the instability in the middle east. It is nearly 100 days since he gave his first statement after the terrible, horrendous actions by Hamas. He justified the actions this week with regard to the protection of marine rights. In those 100 days, 7,000 Palestinian children have been killed. What effective action is he taking to protect the right to life of Palestinian children and to prevent what is, in reality, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian children by the Israel Defence Forces?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we are deeply concerned about the devastating impact of the fighting in Gaza on the civilian population. Too many people have lost their lives already, which is why we continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. It is something that I continually raise with Prime Minister Netanyahu when I speak to him, and it is why we are doing absolutely everything we can to get more aid into Gaza to help those children and everyone else affected by what is happening.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I very much welcome this robust statement, but I agree about proscribing the IRGC. Operationally, given the continued threat to international shipping and, by extension, to our own economy, will the Prime Minister consider tasking the carrier group that is ready to deploy from Portsmouth to the Gulf? More strategically, does he agree that interruption to our global supply chains underlines the symbiotic relationship between our security and the UK economy? If we rightly seek to play a greater role in upholding international law as our world becomes ever more contested, we need to expedite upgrading our defence posture, not least in the maritime space.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the interconnectedness of the world. The instability that we see, whether it is in the Red sea or, indeed, the illegal war conducted in Ukraine by Russia, has had a direct impact on the economic security of British people here at home. That is why it is right that we invest in defence and protect people, and that is why I know that he will continue to engage in dialogue with the Defence Secretary about how best to deploy that extra defence investment to ensure that we have the capabilities we need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please resume your seats. We have already had an hour on this statement and it looks as though a considerable number of Members still wish to get in. Please ask short questions so that I can help get everyone in.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The right of innocent passage is a fundamental principle of international law and cannot be interrupted by non-state actors. However, although the Prime Minister might wish that this was not the case, international law is not a menu. It comes as a package; we cannot pick and choose which bits we want to uphold and which we want to ignore. Is he unable to see how ignoring Israel’s egregious breaches of international law in Gaza, while purporting to act in defence of it in Yemen, actually undermines international law and the rules-based order?
The Prime Minister
No. Israel has the right to act in self-defence against Hamas, who conducted a terrorist attack on it, and we continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected in that conflict.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The House should be in no doubt that conflating issues relating to Israel and Hamas is not a mature way to look at the problem that the Prime Minister had to consider last week. He has made the right decision on the evidence, in accordance with law. Had he failed to take that action, he would have been exposed to justifiable criticism in this House. In the light of the approach that he is taking, with regard to Ukraine and the work we are doing with the Ukrainian Government, will more be done to help our friends in Ukraine to develop further their justice processes, which in the long term will improve the good governance of that independent country?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point and I am pleased to tell him that the Attorney General is deeply involved in the work he suggests. We are supporting the work of the office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine in particular but, more generally, the agreement that I just signed with President Zelensky ensures our mutual commitment to helping him reform the public administration in Ukraine. That is something he is passionate about and keen to do, and he will have our support in doing it.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has heard the support for limited, targeted action against the Houthis, and I listened carefully to what he said about the efforts to prevent civilian casualties, which was unfortunately an issue I had to raise many times in relation to the previous conflict in Yemen. Can he say a bit more about what we are doing practically to ensure that strikes are tightly targeted against Houthi military capabilities? He rightly made the point that they were being done to protect civilian shipping, but can he say more about what we are doing to prevent civilian casualties?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will respect the fact that we do not comment in depth on the choice of targets, but we do use carefully calibrated intelligence, in conjunction with our military partners. The targets were selected specifically to degrade military capabilities and narrowly focused on taking out military hardware that could be used to attack commercial shipping. I can reassure him that every effort was made to minimise civilian casualties, and our initial assessment says that has been successful.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said over the weekend that the world is in the most dangerous situation it has been in for decades. The UK has seen military deployments in Ukraine, Kosovo, Guyana and now the Red sea. It is crucial to ensure that our armed forces have the appropriate support and the resources they need. The Prime Minister has said that the Government are committed to an aspiration of 2.5% spending on defence. When does he see that aspiration becoming a reality, and will the Government now look at increasing that further to 3%, in line with the Foreign Secretary’s statement?
The Prime Minister
We have been investing in anticipation of the threats increasing, which is why at the last spending review the Ministry of Defence received a £24 billion cash increase—the largest sustained increase since the end of the cold war. Since then we have invested an extra £5 billion in increasing stockpiles and improving the sustainability of our defence nuclear enterprise. In 2025, when we have the next spending review, we will of course set out the target and the path towards 2.5%.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and assure him that the Democratic Unionist party will stand with him and with our Government in sending a clear message to those who would seek to attack either our shipping routes or our positions. We will not be silenced by those who believe that they can work in the shadows to supply Yemen, or indeed any other country, with intelligence or arms. Will he affirm that the friendship and approach between the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, Canada and many other nations remains strong enough to stand together against any attempt to undermine our current position?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is right about the importance of working with our allies. He will have seen that all the countries he mentioned are joint signatories to the statement that was put out in advance and after the strikes.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Of course we have a right to defend ourselves, and of course sinister forces, such as the Houthis and Iran, are exploiting these tensions, but as we have influence on the Americans because we step up to the mark, can my right hon. Friend work with the American President to ensure that, just as he is completely vigorous in defending Israel and its right to exist, he is even as vigorous in defending the right of the Palestinian people to their own state, in peace and justice, without a settlement being imposed on them every week?
The Prime Minister
I say to my right hon. Friend that we want to see the long-term future of a two-state solution where Palestinian and Israeli people can live side by side in security and freedom, and with dignity and opportunity. That is the future that we are all striving for, and the events of the past few months have just reminded us that we need to double our efforts on making that happen.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I regard with the utmost seriousness the threat posed by Houthi forces to mariners in the Red sea, but does the Prime Minister accept that upholding the right to freedom of navigation in the region is an international challenge that should be dealt with through international diplomacy aimed principally at securing a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza, and that, by joining US-led military action without reference to the UN, we are in danger of exacerbating the threat posed to British citizens by terrorism?
The Prime Minister
Again, the hon. Gentleman has wrongly linked and conflated the situation in Israel and Gaza with the illegal attacks by the Houthis on innocent commercial shipping. That is simply wrong. As I pointed out in my statement, extensive diplomatic avenues had been pursued before military action was taken as a last resort, including a UN Security Council resolution.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for his action. He has acted clearly on robust legal advice, and the legal position in international law is surely clear. Does he agree, first, that it is unhelpful—and frankly dangerous—to make bogus comparisons; and secondly, that the greatest risk of escalation going forward will be in failing to act robustly when clear and egregious breaches of international law take place?
The Prime Minister
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. He is absolutely right that there is a risk in inaction. To have done nothing in the face of these attacks would have been to damage the security of our people and our interests.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to protecting the fundamental tenets of international law and upholding the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but is it equally as distinct and limited to this action as it to all other situations?
The Prime Minister
I did not completely follow what the hon. Gentleman said, but I said that our actions in this case were specific to the case at hand. We acted in self-defence because there were escalating attacks from the Houthis and defiance of international diplomacy. It was right that we took action to protect the security and interests of our people.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Given the global shortage of basic ammunition, artillery rounds and air defence systems and missiles, is it not time that we upscaled our industrial defence capacity so that we can continue to support our friends in Ukraine and replenish our own stocks?
The Prime Minister
That is an excellent point. In a word, yes. That is why we have invested £2.5 billion in rebuilding our stockpiles. Beyond the money, we do need to build our defence industrial capability. That is a challenge shared across NATO that I have discussed extensively with partners, including the NATO Secretary-General. Of course, part of our agreement with Ukraine is how we can mutually help to support and grow our defence industrial complexes.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The death and destruction in Gaza is intolerable. Well over 20,000 children and innocent civilians have already been killed by Israeli forces, more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held by Hamas, and there is the real risk of an escalating wider regional conflict. We desperately need an end to the violence, so can the Prime Minister explain exactly what diplomatic progress he has achieved towards securing a sustainable ceasefire and peace in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being, I think, the first Member on the Opposition Benches to remind the House that Hamas still holds 100 Israeli hostages—it is good that he pointed that out. He is right: we are continuing to do everything we can to bring about that sustainable ceasefire, including working with the Qataris and others to secure the release of hostages and put more aid into Gaza, because I want to see what the hon. Gentleman wants to see. No one wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer; it must be a sustainable ceasefire, and that is what we will work hard to bring about.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The International Atomic Energy Agency recently confirmed that Iran is once again ramping up its uranium enrichment activity to near weapons grade, so in welcoming today’s statement and the action we have taken, I also urge my right hon. Friend to give the House his assurance that he and his counterparts among our allies are not losing sight of the really big question about whether Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Has he considered whether it is the right time to activate the snap-back sanctions provisions of the joint comprehensive plan of action?
The Prime Minister
That is an excellent point. There is absolutely no credible civilian justification for enrichment at the levels that the IAEA has reported in Iran. We are determined that Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon, and we are actively considering next steps with our international partners. That means all diplomatic tools, including—as my right hon. Friend said—using the snap-back mechanism if necessary.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
We all stand behind Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, but does the Prime Minister accept that if we believe that the UK’s security is important in relation to Ukraine, we are giving relatively less than other countries such as Germany? Can and should we be doing more?
The Prime Minister
We should be proud of our record. We have been one of the largest contributors to the effort in Ukraine, but it is also important to recognise that we have consistently been the first country to act, and that has galvanised others. That is an important role that the Ukrainians especially recognise. I went through the capabilities that was true for, but again, crucially, we were the first country out of the 30 that promised to sign a security commitment. As others follow, that will enhance and improve Ukraine’s deterrent against Russia, and that is something we should be proud of.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is in the Chamber, opening himself up to democratic scrutiny, but I also welcome the fact that he took the decision to act—took that heavy duty and responsibility—before coming to this House. It is folly to ask for a vote in advance of action, and it is in the interests of our national security that the Prime Minister can act. That precedent goes a long way back, well before the precedents he has cited of 2015 and 2018. It is the constitutional basis on which we defend ourselves as a country.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and his comments. He is right that this is not a decision I took lightly, and right to point out that publicising an action like this in advance could undermine its effectiveness and risk lives. Of course, it is Parliament’s responsibility to hold me to account for such decisions, but it is my responsibility as Prime Minister to make those decisions.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister may not be aware—perhaps he is—that I am not the greatest expert on international relations, but I was born on 17 August 1940, when the German bombs were falling all over and I was sheltering in a shelter. I have been a Labour friend of Israel ever since I went to the London School of Economics, but I do not trust Netanyahu’s Government, although I do support the limited action that the Prime Minister has announced. As someone who was born in the blitz, I care very deeply about actions that might lead to an even greater conflagration in the middle east. That is the danger—it seems to me that it is exactly what Putin and Iran want. Please, let us be careful in our steps, although I do support this limited action.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and reassure him that the action we took was—I believe—necessary, but it was limited, proportionate, and in keeping with international law. That is the approach we will always take in such matters.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
This year, I was proud to once again celebrate Christmas and new year with Huddersfield and Colne Valley’s vibrant Ukrainian community, just as I have done for many years. They told me first hand how proud and appreciative they are of the UK’s steadfast support for Ukraine. Will the Prime Minister continue to make the case, not only to the British people but to our NATO and international allies, for why we must make sure, alongside Ukraine, that Putin’s evil aggression does not succeed, and remind people of what the dire consequences would be if it ever did?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Putin were to succeed, it would not just embolden him, but embolden our adversaries around the world, and that is why it is important that we continue to invest in Ukraine. As I say to all our allies, an investment in Ukraine’s security is ultimately an investment in our security, and that is why we must stand with it for as long as it takes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Government of Japan clearly brought the resolution to the UN last week for specific reasons, and it was a very detailed resolution that was voted on. One part of it, which they think is extremely important, is the part to deal with the “root causes” of the conflict in relation to Yemen. Can I give the Prime Minister an opportunity to reflect again on the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn): what is the Government’s plan now to play a part in the ending of that conflict? What comes next?
The Prime Minister
As I have said previously, we are supportive of the Saudi-Houthi negotiations and of the deal announced in December by the UN special envoy. We have been in dialogue specifically with the Saudis on this issue, and we continue to want to see a lasting peace in Yemen brought through an inclusive political settlement.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his decisive action. The threat posed by Houthi rebels to global trade demonstrates the importance of maintaining well-resourced armed forces on land, at sea and in the air. Given the current challenges in recruitment and retention of service personnel, will my right hon. Friend consider further support for cadet units, such as the excellent ones at Ilkeston and Long Eaton in my constituency, to ensure that we have a trained supply of recruits who are ready and willing to serve?
The Prime Minister
May I say to hon. Friend that that is an excellent idea, and I pay tribute to all her local cadets for the incredible job they do? I am sure the whole House will have experience of that in their own constituencies. I can say that we are introducing a number of ways to improve recruitment in the armed forces and look at more innovative ways to attract people into it, and I know the Defence Secretary will have heard what she said with interest.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Military action in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, in which the UK has played a part, has frequently resulted in unintended consequences, triggering further cycles of conflict in and around these countries. Will the Prime Minister accept that the US and the UK bombing Yemen risks escalating tensions at a time when violence is spreading in the middle east, and will he commit to allowing Parliament to vote on any further action?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady’s characterisation of what we did was not right. It was not bombing Yemen; it was taking targeted, limited action against Houthi military sites that were launching attacks on civilian shipping. As hon. Members have said, it is also worth pointing out the risks of inaction, which she failed to mention, because doing nothing would send a dangerous message that British vessels, British interests and British lives are fair game, and that would be unacceptable.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken and for the leadership he has shown. Can he tell the House what discussions he has had with key influencers and key allies in the region such as Qatar, Egypt and others that have played a prominent part in seeking to de-escalate tensions in the area?
The Prime Minister
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I and both the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary are having those conversations. I spoke to President Sisi recently and, indeed, all other leaders in the middle east towards the end of last year. As we speak, the Foreign Secretary is engaged, together with his colleagues, in extensive dialogue to make sure our allies and partners understand what we did and why, and that we remain committed to seeing a peaceful future for everyone living in the middle east.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have been denied access to a Russian-occupied Ukrainian nuclear power station for two weeks and have not yet received 2024 maintenance plans for the facility. Can the Prime Minister tell me what assessment the UK Government have made of that situation?
The Prime Minister
I think that just highlights Russia’s continuing malignant activity, which serves to cause everyone alarm, particularly when it comes to the security of nuclear power. The IAEA must have free access to all the sites it needs to, and it has been a long-standing concern that it has not been able to have that. We continue to call out Russian behaviour at the UN and elsewhere, and that is what we will do to make sure that it is accountable.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The freedom of navigation is an uncontested right, whether it is in the South China sea or the gulf of Aden. Before I was in this place, I was a shipping broker. Could the Prime Minister reassure the shipping industry, of which London remains one of the foremost capitals, that we will be able to lay on more support with armed convoys through the gulf of Aden and into the Red sea, and that we will supply as much reassurance as possible and equipment for the maritime protection force that has been mentioned by others?
The Prime Minister
I hope my hon. Friend will have seen the welcome response from the shipping industry and leading shipping companies, which have welcomed the action we have taken to restore security to the region. We are members of Prosperity Guardian, which is something the shipping industry is keen to see, so that we can bring that safety of transit for all their clients. We will be in regular dialogue with them, as the Transport Secretary has been, in the coming days and weeks.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Since the outbreak of war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, as well as the crisis in shipping security, which has now led to the UK military response to protect British interests, fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has been intensifying, risking a wider escalation engulfing Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and other countries. Can the Prime Minister be more specific and tell the House exactly what he is doing, working with the US and regional partners, to bring an end to the war in Gaza and to stop a full-blown regional conflict, which we are all very concerned about?
The Prime Minister
We are calling on Hamas and using our influence with their partners in the region to release hostages, and we are making sure we get as much aid into Gaza in the interim, because we know there is a need for it. We are concerned by the impact being caused, and the UK is playing a leading role in alleviating the suffering.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his clear statement on this necessary military action in Yemen. Can I join him in paying tribute to our brave armed forces? Can he reaffirm that this action is important for protecting freedom of navigation and the safety of shipping, which has direct and indirect impacts on world trade and the UK economy?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the impact of what is happening in the Red sea on British families at home. Some 15% of global trade passes through this corridor, and as we are seeing, if that has to reroute, it will have a direct consequence on the prices that British families pay. As we saw with the Ukraine and Russia situation, we cannot ignore what is happening. We need to act to protect British people and ensure their economic security.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Of course the Houthi rebels must stop their attacks in the Red sea. The Prime Minister was correct in his statement to speak of the dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen. He has spoken at the Dispatch Box today about the aid delivery to Yemen, yet he failed to mention that under successive Conservative Governments humanitarian aid to Yemen has fallen since 2018, both as a cash figure and as a proportion of official development assistance. If the Prime Minister accepts that there is a humanitarian crisis—not just in Yemen, but across the globe in Gaza, Ethiopia and other countries—will his Government return to 0.7%? That move would be supported by Members from all parts of the House.
The Prime Minister
We are the fifth largest donor to the UN appeal in Yemen, with a billion pounds since the conflict started. We are providing food to at least 100,000 people every month. It is a record that we should be proud of, where the UK again is leading by example and making an enormous difference around the world.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Since 1875, the Royal Navy has had the key objective of keeping the Suez canal open for commercial shipping, so this action should have come as a surprise to no one, and I commend the Prime Minister on his decisive action in that regard. However, listening to the statement today, I am not hearing much of a connection with Gaza. What I am hearing again and again in questions is connections to Iran. It is easy to look at the symptoms, but the causes also need to be looked at. Will my right hon. Friend be working with our international allies to deal with the question of Iran?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the linkage is with the behaviour of the Iranian regime. We agree with the US assessments, and I can reassure him that we are working closely with partners. Obviously, we are taking steps to protect ourselves here at home with the National Security Act 2023 and other measures, but internationally we want to see Iran’s influence on the region create less instability. That is why, for example, our interdiction of illegal arms shipments is so important, and we will remain actively engaged on how we can do more.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Clearly we could not ignore attacks on international shipping, and we were right to act with international partners. We must continue to work to broaden that partnership in dealing with the situation as we go forward. Having said that, can the Prime Minister say how we measure success with this limited engagement? How do we deem it to be safe for international shipping to return to the Red sea? What is the end plan?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. On its merits, as I said, our initial assessment is that we have been successful in destroying the specific targets that were selected, but that remains an initial assessment. We want to see what he spoke about: a return of safe shipping to the region. The Transport Secretary is engaging regularly with companies about their passage, and we will continue to do everything we can, working together with our allies, to ensure that safe passage through the region.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Iranian-backed Houthis are a terrorist group who have killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis and are fighting the internationally recognised Government in Yemen. The action that the UK took with allies last week was absolutely correct. What further efforts are the Government making to augment the already impressive international coalition, with more countries stepping up and playing their part, to ensure freedom of navigation, which is so important for global free trade?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will continue to engage diplomatically to broaden that coalition. As he knows, 14 countries have signed the statement—the UN Security Council resolution—but ultimately everybody is impacted when freedom of navigation is imperilled as it is, not just through the security of their citizens, but because of the shock to their domestic economies from higher inflation. So I am confident that we will continue to have a broad coalition for condemning what the Houthis are doing and calling on them to desist.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
After the horrific events of 7 October, the Prime Minister told the House that the UK was working to prevent escalation. He said:
“we are increasing our presence to prevent broader regional instability at this dangerous moment.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 24.]
Yet in the following months, nearly 24,000 Palestinians have been killed, and there has been cross-border fighting with Hezbollah, air raids in Lebanon and Syria, and now Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red sea, resulting in US and UK strikes in Yemen. Does he accept that the attempts to prevent escalation and broader instability are failing, that the cycle of violence must stop, and that that requires an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and an end to the indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza?
The Prime Minister
In Gaza, no one wants to see the conflict go on a moment longer than is necessary. We support a ceasefire, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire that will last. That is what we will continue to work to bring about.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister, who was right to act with force, determination and firepower against the Houthi terrorists to protect international shipping and keep the Red sea shipping lanes open. With the recent deal between Ethiopia and Somaliland opening up the real possibility of international and regional recognition of Somaliland as an independent country, which would help to enable stability in the horn of Africa, the southern end of the Red sea and the Gulf of Aden, does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK should follow Ethiopia’s example and start the process to recognise Somaliland as a sovereign, independent country?
The Prime Minister
I thank hon. Friend for his support of our action. He will know that the Foreign Office and Ministers are regularly engaged with our partners in Africa. What we want to do is bring prosperity and security to the region, and we will continue to dialogue with everyone to ensure that that happens.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Having been born in Aden, I am obviously saddened that the democratic and humanitarian crisis in Yemen over the last nine years has not provoked such an active response against the Houthis. Who advised the Prime Minister not to come to Parliament? How will he ensure that the peace agreement in Yemen is actively and vigorously monitored and pursued?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we support the Saudi-Houthi negotiations and the deal announced in December by the UN special envoy on Yemen. I urge the Houthis to stop jeopardising the best chance of peace in Yemen in years and engage constructively, so that we can expand the benefits that the truce has brought to the Yemeni people. Of course, we need to see progress from them on that. Once that is done, hopefully all of us can look forward to a brighter future for the Yemeni people.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
There are credible reports that the Houthis, who launched missiles at HMS Diamond and the ships of our American allies, were trained in their use in Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is therefore a direct threat to our servicemen and women, just as for many years it has been a threat to British citizens on the streets of the United Kingdom. I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the sanctions that have been applied to the IRGC, but may I urge him to recognise that now is the time to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, because that is what it is?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the destabilising influence of the Iranian regime. We will continue to work constructively with our allies to ensure that we do not just protect our citizens at home, but reduce and degrade Iran’s ability to destabilise the region further.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on funding for Ukraine and the UK-Ukraine security co-operation agreement, which, in line with the NATO-Ukraine commission’s programme, focuses now on increasing Ukraine’s defence industrial base and ensuring that it can provide long-term assistance against Russia’s aggression. Can he tell us what discussions he had with President Zelensky about exactly how both Government and UK manufacturers will be involved in implementing that in full?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the necessity of doing that. It was a feature of our conversations last week, but we also facilitated a visit by some of our leading defence companies to Ukraine at the end of last year to further the co-operation between our two countries. There is a path forward to see how we can build that—to build the defence industrial base in Ukraine to help it to defend itself in future.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I associate myself with all the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the commitment to root out antisemitism. It is unacceptable for British Jews to be held responsible for the actions of Israel as a Government, as is the idea that they can have any effect on the Israeli Prime Minister or his Cabinet. In the same vein, given the rise of Islamophobia, it has been a new low and a painful blow today for the Prime Minister to say to a British Muslim in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), that she should tell Hamas and the Houthis to stop doing what they are doing. That is an Islamophobic trope. Maybe the Prime Minister will reflect, withdraw and take the opportunity to show leadership and apologise. Coming back to the question, the Government—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think the hon. Lady has asked a question.
The Prime Minister
I have said to all Members consistently not to conflate these conflicts and, when calling on the UK to de-escalate tensions, to recognise that the people causing these situations in the first place are the Hamas terrorist organisation and the Houthis. It has nothing to do with anything other than recognising the instigators of this violence and illegality, and ensuring that that is uppermost in everybody’s minds when we have these conversations about the best way to respond.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Only a handful of MPs have had the chance to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary since his appointment last year. In fact, news presenters have had more opportunities to scrutinise him than we have. Parliament is supposed to be sovereign, and we must be able to scrutinise major decisions, such as last week’s air strikes. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that we in this House can scrutinise the Foreign Secretary, and debate and vote on military action?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has made regular statements over the past couple of months on foreign affairs. I am here answering questions about last week’s actions, and the Procedure Committee is actively looking at how we ensure proper accountability and scrutiny— I gave evidence on that particular topic to the Liaison Committee in December.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We must support the recognised Yemeni Government, not least by helping them to address the huge problems of malnutrition and hunger. The Government have slashed aid by almost £200 million. The Prime Minister has already answered several questions on humanitarian aid, but will he reverse the cuts to the aid budget to address the human suffering in Yemen, which only fuels the success of the Houthi terrorists?
The Prime Minister
I was proud that we hosted a food security summit, which was warmly welcomed by vulnerable countries last year. Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell the House how she would propose to pay for the £5 billion increase in the aid budget that she proposes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
While the Prime Minister has clarified that the strikes in Yemen are disassociated from Gaza, the Iranian arc has drawn a different conclusion, not least as the strikes took place the same day as the International Court of Justice case brought by South Africa. We know that the only way forward is de-escalation. Given that assaults continue on the merchant navy, and assaults in Gaza continued over the weekend, when will the Prime Minister condemn Israel’s attacks on civilians and call for an immediate ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
I have addressed that previously. With regard to South Africa’s referral of Israel to the ICJ, that development is unhelpful. We do not agree with it and I do not believe it is right. As we have previously stated, Israel has a right to take action in self-defence against Hamas. It is important that it does that in accordance with international humanitarian law, and we will continue to make that point to it.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
We are now in a very dangerous moment, when the war in Gaza risks spreading into a much wider and even more deadly war across the middle east. There is a real risk that our country will find itself in yet another war in the middle east that it cannot get out of easily. To avoid any wider war, do we not now need an emphasis on de-escalation and diplomatic efforts? Does the need to seek such a wider diplomatic solution not make it more urgent to be pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza?
The Prime Minister
As I said, no one wants to see the conflict in Gaza go on a moment longer than is necessary. We support a ceasefire, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire that will last. That means Hamas no longer in power in Gaza and no longer able to threaten Israel with rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism. Hamas simply do not represent the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Some in the House may recall that one of my constituents was held captive by the Houthis for five years, simply for being in possession of a British passport. The House will know that we were able to get him safely returned, but we should be under no illusions about the nature of the Houthis. May I re-emphasise the importance of minimising civilian casualties in any action the UK is involved with? Will the Prime Minister impress that not only on our highly professional armed forces, but our partners in any further action taken by the UK?
The Prime Minister
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Again, our initial assessment is that we were successful in minimising civilian casualties in this case.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
There are times when a Government need to take military action without the approval of Parliament, including for operational security or the element of surprise. However, last week’s strikes were signalled very plainly in the media. The strikes could have been debated, voted on and supported by this House in advance of action. Tomorrow, I will table a Bill that would require parliamentary approval for the engagement of UK armed forces in armed conflict, even if it is retrospective. Will the Prime Minister support it?
The Prime Minister
As I said, it was necessary to act with speed to allow our armed forces to maintain the vital security of their operations and to ensure their effectiveness. I believe that that is in accordance with the convention on the deployment of military force. As I said previously, we must maintain the prerogative powers that allow the Executive to act in such emergencies, but I am here in Parliament to explain the action in full and take responsibility for it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister, earlier in his statement, said that the Houthis were aided by Iranian military intelligence assets to target British shipping. Does that mean that the UK Government consider Iranian military intelligence assets to be legitimate targets for future military strikes?
The Prime Minister
I think what I said was that we agree with the US assessment that Iran supported Houthi attacks and provided intelligence in a general sense to enable Houthi targeting of vessels. I have talked about the destabilising influence of Iran in the region and the threat it poses to the UK. That is why we have taken significant and decisive action to protect ourselves against that threat and will continue to work with our allies to restrain its malign influence.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As much as the Houthis might wish to conflate their piracy with support for the Palestinian people, their indiscriminate attacks on shipping from across the world indicate otherwise. But while I agree that under international law there was justification for this military intervention, what was the Prime Minister’s assessment of the risk that the action could ignite conflict across the middle east, and of apparent double standards in when the UK or its allies choose to observe international law?
The Prime Minister
We always strive to ensure that we comply with international law, as we did in this case, but we should also recognise the risks of inaction. Doing nothing would very clearly weaken international security and the rule of law, and damage freedom of navigation and the global economy. Crucially, it would send a very dangerous message: that British vessels, British lives and British interests are fair game. That is not something we could allow to stand.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
In his statement, the Prime Minister told us that one of his motives was the ordinary people of Yemen. He said that the Houthis’ attacks risked worsening the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen itself, before patting himself on the back over the number of people the UK helps to feed in Yemen. He is not wrong about the Houthis, but surely the cuts in the international aid budget pose the biggest threat to Yemen and the people of Yemen. Two years ago, the Government cut it from £221 million a year to £81 million—an eye-watering cut. Will the Prime Minister restore that aid, and if not, does he understand why we in the SNP remain unconvinced of his motives?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we are proudly one of the largest contributors of aid to Yemen. It is the Houthis who, by disrupting shipping, are disrupting the very supplies of food that are necessary to feed their people. When it comes to increasing the aid budget, I took the decision I did because I believed it was in our country’s best interests, given its financial situation post covid. We now know that Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom economy, so perhaps the hon. Lady can explain to the British people what taxes she would increase to pay for an increase in the aid budget.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to say that there is a consequence of inaction just as there is a consequence of action, and clearly the Houthis gave no alternative to the response that has come from the UK and our allies. However, the Prime Minister also said—incredibly, I thought—that their attacks on shipping were completely unrelated to the appalling civil war in Yemen, for which they are entirely responsible and which has claimed nearly 380,000 lives. Surely the attacks had everything to do with that conflict.
There is a concern that the Houthis’ political position has been strengthened inside Yemen and beyond as a result of the actions on both sides. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the impact of these actions on the peace process, and can he spell out not what we have done and been involved in, but what more we will do to achieve a political solution and a political settlement in Yemen?
The Prime Minister
What I said was that our response was not linked to the conflict in Gaza and should not be conflated as being so. As I have said, we are the penholder on Yemen in the UN Security Council, so we are having extensive diplomatic engagement with allies, notably the Saudis, to see whether we can support the deal that was announced in December, and we will continue to do so. Obviously, the onus is on the Houthis to engage with that process to bring about peace and stability for the people of Yemen.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Nothing angers me more than those who choose to use the plight of the Palestinians to further their own nefarious ends. That applies to Iran primarily, but also to its proxies. Does the Prime Minister accept that the best way to pull the rug from under the Iranian regime is to achieve that two-state solution by way of an immediate bilateral ceasefire in this conflict?
The Prime Minister
As I have said previously, we do support a ceasefire but it must be sustainable, and multiple things have to happen for it to be so. As I have also said previously, we remain committed to a two-state solution, because I believe in a future—as do the Government and, I think, the House—in which Palestinian and Israeli people can live side by side in peace and security and in which everyone can live their lives with dignity and opportunity. That is the future that we are striving to build.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s remarks about the situation in Ukraine and our commitment in that regard. However, the escalation and conflagration of the situation in the middle east, which has seen 23,000 deaths of civilians including children, is not only shocking but is now extending to a crisis of other nations and across the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to see a negotiated ceasefire in Gaza, and that ultimately, 30 years on from the Oslo accords, we have to see a “land for peace” negotiated deal?
The Prime Minister
No one wants to see this conflict go on a moment longer than is necessary. We support a ceasefire, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire that will last. That means Hamas releasing hostages, but also no longer being able to threaten Israel with rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism. In the meantime, we will do everything we can to get more aid into Gaza.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is obvious that the longer the conflict in Gaza goes on, the more innocent civilian casualties there will be and the greater the risk of wider escalation in the region. Is it not the case that if the UK is to be seen as an honest broker, the Prime Minister, as well as rightly condemning Hamas, needs to call out Israel for clear breaches of humanitarian law and call for an immediate ceasefire? With actors such as China now calling for an international conference to set a timetable for a two-state solution, would it not be better if the UK were doing something constructive to get that two-state solution in place?
The Prime Minister
We continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. Too many civilians have been killed and, as I have made clear, Israel should do more to ensure that its campaign is targeted on Hamas leaders and their operatives.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Farea Al-Muslimi, a research fellow at Chatham House, has argued that the attacks on Yemen will have the opposite effect of instigating a widened Houthi campaign, including attacks on US and UK installations across the Arabian peninsula. If the Houthi operations continue as they have done in the last couple of days, and if the UK and US military responses persist, what is the endgame? How much death and destruction is this country risking if we do not prioritise the cessation of military action not only in Yemen and the Red sea but, crucially, in Gaza, the west bank and Israel?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady talks about the cessation of military action in the Red sea, but it is the Houthis who are conducting illegal strikes on civilian shipping. To do nothing in the face of that would be to weaken our security and leave British interests and lives at risk.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
We have seen from earlier events in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere that military intervention by the United Kingdom and United States has resulted in destabilisation and subsequent civil wars, with massive loss of civilian life. What, if any, diplomatic efforts is the Prime Minister making to prevent this from happening in Yemen?
The Prime Minister
As I have pointed out, 14 countries signed a statement earlier this year calling on the Houthis to desist from what they were doing and saying that there would be consequences, and we have had a UN Security Council resolution condemning Houthi activity and noting the right of states to act in self-defence. That is what we did: we acted in a proportionate and necessary way following the direct threat to UK vessels and therefore to the UK itself.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Many people are deeply worried about the escalation of hostilities and the growing instability across the region. There must be an accelerated determination to bring about an urgently needed ceasefire in Gaza and hostage release. If the bombing does not deter the awful actions of the Houthi rebels, what is the Prime Minister’s plan B?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, in all cases there is a risk of inaction in the face of attacks on civilian lives and British interests, and it would have been wrong to do nothing. There has been extensive diplomatic activity and this military action was limited, proportionate, necessary and in self-defence. I believe that that was the right course of action, and to do nothing would have been wrong.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister rightly said that we must condemn the Houthis and their illegal strikes on innocent civilians to protect the rule of law, so will he also condemn Israel’s illegal strikes against innocent civilians, including 10,000 dead children, to protect the self-same rule of law?
The Prime Minister
As I have said repeatedly, we are deeply concerned about the devastating impact of the fighting in Gaza on the civilian population. Too many people have lost their lives already and there is a desperate need to increase humanitarian support to Gaza. That is what we are doing, as well as calling on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law and do everything it can to protect civilian life.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There is greater conflict in the middle east now than there has been for many years—in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, as well as in Yemen, Israel and Palestine—much of it stoked by hostile actors. The Prime Minister has told us what his military response is, but what specific diplomatic initiative is he pursuing to promote Britain’s historic role to achieve peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will know that I was one of the first foreign leaders to visit the region after the attacks, and I met all the leaders from across the region, including all the Arab states and President Abbas from the Palestinian Authority. We are working with them to make sure they have the capability for a post-Gaza future and on how best to deliver that, as well as working with other Arab partners on increasing the supply of aid and to work towards a more peaceful long-term future.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister is right to point to the consequences for all our constituents of the Houthis’ direct attacks on shipping. He is also right to talk about the dangers of inaction, but can I add my voice to those who have pointed to our inaction in this place towards the Islamic Revolutionary Guard? We now see the malign hand of Iran throughout the middle east, creating situation after situation. Does the Prime Minister not think the time has come to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation?
The Prime Minister
We do not comment on proscription decisions, but I agree with the hon. Lady that the behaviour of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC, poses a significant threat to the safety and security of the UK and our allies. That is why we have sanctioned over 400 individuals, including the IRGC in its entirely. We have passed new laws such as the National Security Act to give us the powers we need to keep us safe, and we will continue to work closely with allies to make sure we implement the most effective ways of reducing Iran’s malign influence in the region.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Prime Minister has emphasised throughout this urgent statement that our action was not an act of escalation, but surely the key determinant of that is how it is perceived by forces in the middle east and by the wider Arab population. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt—countries we would not describe as anti-western in any way—have all expressed varying degrees of concern. Is the Prime Minister not worried that many of the key players in the region view the military action as escalatory?
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that we can outsource our foreign policy to the perception in other countries. We should recognise the risks of inaction. To do nothing, as I said, would be to weaken international security and the rule of law. It would further damage freedom of navigation and the global economy, including for British families. Crucially, to do nothing would send a dangerous message that British vessels, British interests and British lives are fair game. That would be completely unacceptable, which is why it is right that we acted.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for five minutes short of two hours.
Points of Order
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In line with the House’s rules, I informed the Member in question that I would be referencing him.
In the statement, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) implied that I had given a “free pass” to the terrorists who carried out the 7 October attacks. That claim is grotesquely untrue. My question to the Prime Minister in no way had that implication. I was calling for de-escalation in the region and for an immediate ceasefire, so the hon. Gentleman’s accusation is absolutely untrue. In this House and elsewhere, I have repeatedly condemned the actions of Hamas and called for the release of all hostages. Moreover, his gross accusation plays to a racist trope by implying that, because I am a Muslim, I support Hamas. With rising Islamophobia and racist tropes asking British Muslims to prove their loyalty, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask you for guidance on how to get a full retraction and an apology from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As loth as I am to engage in this silliness, let me be absolutely clear to the hon. Lady that not only did I not reference her, but I have on numerous occasions—[Interruption.] If she will listen to my response, I have said on numerous occasions that too many people have failed to call out what I think is unacceptable behaviour. I have said that before, and I am not going to stop saying that, on occasion, I think people have given a free pass to this behaviour and have not dealt with it with a fair hand. That is an open point of debate. I have called out people on my own side for that—[Interruption.] Will she listen to me? It has absolutely nothing to do with this.
I do not want to engage in this silliness, but I say to the hon. Lady that I have absolutely no intention of implying that she is any way—[Interruption.] Let me respond. I have no intention of implying that she in any way supports that. I am sure she does not, I did not say that and I would never say it. However, I am also not going to not say what I think in this House or to stop calling people out. On this issue, I think too many people in this place are giving a free pass to one side while not acknowledging the horrors that the other side suffered.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will allow that, on both sides, to stand on the record.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the parliamentary convention regarding the deployment of UK armed forces for armed conflict. The Prime Minister will have heard the consternation from across the House about MPs having a say on this deployment of troops in the Red sea. There is a convention, forged in the fire of the Iraq war debates, that this House should have its say in advance of any military action. That was confirmed on the Floor of the House in 2011—under the then Prime Minister, now the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron—when the then Leader of the House said:
“We propose to observe that convention except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 1066.]
We were told for weeks that these strikes were about to happen, so this was not an emergency. The Prime Minister mentioned a process in 2015, which I presume was to do with Iraq. However, in that justification, which again was given on the Floor of the House, the Minister said that it was not military action. In fact, it is only the 2018 lack of vote and debate that is the aberration since 2002. So my question is this: does this Prime Minister observe that convention? What is the guidance for this House? What is the process to ensure that we can hold the Government to account on this matter, which should have urgent consideration?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for advance notice of it. Since 2011, the Government have recognised the convention that before troops are committed this House should have an opportunity to debate the matter. The Government have undertaken, in the Cabinet manual and in statements to this House, to observe that convention, except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate. It is for the Government to explain to the House why prior parliamentary authorisation was not appropriate in this case. As she will have heard, the Prime Minister was asked directly by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) about pre-authorisation and the House heard his response to that question.
Bill Presented
Airports (Prohibition of Night Flights) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Olney, supported by John McDonnell, Andy Slaughter, Munira Wilson, Christine Jardine, Dr Rupa Huq and Ed Davey, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of prohibiting scheduled flights from landing or taking off between the hours of 11pm and 6am.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 78).
The Speaker’s Absence
Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Tuesday 16 January to attend the memorial service of the Right Honourable the Baroness Boothroyd, former Speaker of this House.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill (Instruction)
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the House resolves itself into Committee, I draw Members’ attention to the instruction motion on the Order Paper, in the name of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, to allow the Committee to make provision for the whole of the United Kingdom. The motion is subject to selection by the Chair, and the Speaker has decided to select it. I call Sammy Wilson to move the motion.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, That the Committee have leave to make provision for the whole of the United Kingdom.
First, let me thank Mr Speaker for selecting this motion, and the Clerk for the help and advice that has been given. The reason for tabling the motion is that the Bill, as it makes clear, applies only to the export of animals from Great Britain and does not include Northern Ireland, so an important piece of animal welfare legislation will not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. A significant part of the UK will be excluded, because a significant number of animal exports come from Northern Ireland.
That exclusion is important, because the most likely source of exports of animals that will suffer as a result of long journeys is Northern Ireland. As a result of the exclusion of Northern Ireland from the Bill, animals can be taken from Northern Ireland, exported through the Irish Republic, taken on a 23-hour boat journey to the European mainland and then carried down to the south of Spain, France or further abroad. The degree of suffering that animals are likely to experience as a result of the exclusion of Northern Ireland from the Bill is very severe, yet the whole point of the Bill is to reduce animal suffering and ensure that live exports, which could lead to animal suffering, do not happen.
Let me remind the House what that journey entails. In a letter from the previous Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland, I was informed that when animals were taken from Northern Ireland on a 300-odd mile journey through the Irish Republic to Rosslare, there was no necessity to feed them at that rest point. They could be put on a ship for a 23-hour journey without being fed, and that still enabled the exporters to comply with EU safety regulations. I put it to the House that if the Bill is about reducing suffering for animals when it comes to live exports, then this is a huge gap that needs to be closed.
The Minister is likely to tell us that there are a number of reasons why this cannot be done. The first reason is that if we include Northern Ireland, a substantial number of exports from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic—and there are substantial exports—would be affected. If this instruction were accepted, there would be an opportunity for the House to consider an amendment, in the name of my party colleagues, to restrict the export of animals to the main destinations in the Republic of Ireland only, so it would not affect that trade. However, that amendment cannot be considered unless this instruction is taken by the House and Northern Ireland is included in the scope of the Bill.
The Minister is likely to argue that that would be contrary to World Trade Organisation rules and so there is no point even proposing such an amendment, but the Government should be testing this area, because even under WTO rules, exceptions can be made. Trade with certain countries or regions can be excluded on the basis of the impact on animal health and welfare. When tested, it might well be that the rule will prove ineffective, but at least by including Northern Ireland in the Bill and accepting the amendment, which can subsequently be debated by the House and voted on, that exception can be tested. The first argument—that there is no point doing this because any subsequent amendments could not work—is not true. The second argument—that it would stop exports to the Irish Republic—can be dealt with.
Another argument that the Minister has not used to date—I do not know whether it is because he does not feel it is politic, or because he does not believe it is important—is that under the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework, certain laws made in this House cannot apply to Northern Ireland. According to the EU, the reason for that is to safeguard the EU single market and ensure that no damage is done to it. I do not see how anyone could argue that the export of live animals from Northern Ireland to the EU single market damages the EU single market. It does not stand to reason.
Even though this is an unusual procedure, there is no reason why Northern Ireland cannot be included in the Bill. I point out to the Minister that, less than a year ago, this House accepted, without Division, a similar instruction in relation to Dáithí’s law on the transfer of organs for health reasons. It did so because there was support for it in Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any political party in Northern Ireland that would oppose the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the animal welfare legislation going through the House tonight.
I promised Mr Speaker that I would be brief, so I will conclude soon. I ask the Minister to accept this motion without Division. There is a logic to this. The Government have an objective of protecting the welfare of animals. A gap has been identified, and that gap can be closed. The inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill would reinforce the Government’s claim that Northern Ireland is fully part of the United Kingdom. Here is an opportunity for the Minister and the Government to show that that is the case. By including Northern Ireland in this legislation, we can protect the welfare of animals, which will be subject to extreme suffering as a result of being exported all across the European Union.
I hope that the whole House will accept that there is absolutely no case for excluding Northern Ireland on constitutional grounds, on the grounds of animal welfare, or on the grounds of the objectives that this Government have set themselves to protect animal welfare. I hope that the House will accept this instruction without any opposition, so that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom will be recognised, animal welfare will be protected, and the Government’s objectives will be achieved for every part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Minister has indicated that he would like to respond to the instruction at the end, so I will call him and any other Front-Bench speakers before then.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I, too, will be very brief on this matter. I have enormous sympathy for this motion of instruction. Just for the record, while we did actually suggest a motion of instruction on Dáithí’s law, it did not actually come to that point, because the Secretary of State intervened beforehand in a very sensible way.
We must recognise that Northern Ireland is part of a different legal framework and also a different context, particularly in relation to the large-scale movements on the island of Ireland. Indeed, the Ulster Farmers Union, no less, has made representations on the need to treat the issue on the island of Ireland differently from what is happening in Great Britain.
We also appreciate that the DUP wishes to table an amendment to make an exemption for movements on the island of Ireland. The difficulty is that, if we end up with a situation where this is not addressed at a European Union level, we will simply see re-exportation involving companies based in the Republic of Ireland, which will defeat the purpose that we are trying to achieve.
For this matter to be addressed, the answer really lies at EU level, with the Northern Ireland Assembly—hopefully restored—having a pivotal role in that regard and working very closely with local stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers Union and local animal welfare organisations. I am conscious that the European Union is actively considering the issue. Perhaps I could ask the Secretary of State, when he responds, to comment on what steps the UK Government could take to support those wider efforts within Europe—I appreciate that, at least for now, we are not part of the EU—and how that can best be taken forward.
It is fair to say that the people of Northern Ireland care as deeply about animal welfare as our colleagues elsewhere in the UK, but we have to find a bespoke solution that addresses our very particular circumstances. We therefore have to proceed in that light. I appreciate that there are complications here, which require more work to be done. Thank you very much.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, which I have been watching carefully for some time. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner. Discouraged by the fact that the Bill is not UK wide, my party has tabled amendments, which as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we trust the Government will accept. It is essential that animal welfare protection rules are UK wide. My constituents feel incredibly strongly about this issue. As my right hon. Friend has said, even with the EU’s tentacles wrapped around the issue, a Bill that is designed solely to enhance animal welfare should still apply to Northern Ireland. Our amendments to protect Northern Ireland and its citizens should be accepted.
The Minister and I, and others present, were on the same page on Brexit, and we both sought the same Brexit. Unfortunately, the Bill’s not being UK wide indicates that we were not recipients of the same Brexit. I know that the Minister appreciates our circumstances and why we tabled the amendments. For some, the search for an elusive “best of both worlds” for the framework highlights only that Northern Ireland is left with no legislator providing protection for animals. I am not sure which person is prepared to wash their hands of that responsibility. Having looked through my mailbox, I am not prepared, and nor is my party, to allow Northern Ireland to be omitted without challenge. This House is where legislative change happens and where the protection must be enshrined.
As is well known in this place, I represent the constituency of Strangford—a combination of urban and rural communities. As such, the impact on farmers is of great interest to me. It must be at the heart of all Government policy. The comments of the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union are clear. I understand that the Minister will visit Northern Ireland shortly, and I suspect that these issues might become part of the conversation. I understand that his visit was supposed to take place this week, but other commitments prevented that. We look forward to welcoming him to my constituency and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart).
When our farmers are expected, rightly, to implement a higher standard of animal welfare, it is essential that nations without such a priority are not allowed to undercut us in trade negotiations. That should be binding policy. Will our farmers be protected? Will there be difficulties, and undercutting, in trade negotiations? Those are key issues for my neighbours. I live in the middle of a farming community, among those who are involved in dairy, beef and sheep farming.
The Government have been quick to rectify differences in legislation between Northern Ireland and the GB mainland on matters—the Minister will know these examples; I am not pointing the finger—such as abortion, relationships and sex education teaching, the Irish language, and Dáithí’s law. The latter was accepted by us all, while the first three examples were opposed by my party, yet the Government seem content for divergence on this Bill, which concerns changes that affect each part of the United Kingdom. I struggle to understand that. I am a tad flabbergasted that on incredibly personal moral issues the Government can and will step in, yet in the realm of animal welfare they are content for two sets of rules to remain in place. For the reasons I outlined, perhaps that too can be explained.
It is essential that the legislation introduces a higher quality of animal welfare for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I respectfully, humbly and sincerely say to the Government that our amendments would make us all equally subject to the law, as we should be. I ask the House to secure animal welfare standards throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am a great believer—I have said this many times—that we are always better together. I say that to everybody, especially my colleagues from Scotland, because I really believe in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that it is where we want to be, but we want to have the same laws. I want to be as British as the Minister. At this moment in time, I do not believe that I am.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I rise to support the instruction tabled by my colleagues and me. Northern Ireland’s industry takes the welfare of all animals seriously, and I have never shirked from enhancing the welfare conditions of animals, whether on the farm or being transported. Both are of high standards, and I know that our farming industry would refute any suggestion that the standards applied to live animal exports from Northern Ireland are substandard. However, there is always room and a desire, from both our farming community and the general public, to enhance our animal welfare standards, which are a priority across the United Kingdom.
If we remove a pathway for the fattening and slaughter of animals born on these islands, it is absolutely vital that the Government support investment in that aspect of the agri-food industry to increase capacity within that element of our food supply chain. Farmers are looking with suspicion at the direction of travel, which seems to want to drive down production in the UK through legislation that restricts elements of our supply chain, while at the same time we seek out trade agreements with third countries where animal welfare standards are barely an afterthought. On consistency, there is food for thought for the House and the Government.
To most people, our instruction is a simple ask: to see the laws made for GB apply to Northern Ireland in relation to live animal exports, while allowing the common-sense essential provisions for ongoing transit of animals to the Irish Republic. I note the comments by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), and I believe them to be disingenuous as our amendments actually cover exports to the Republic of Ireland.
It is for this House to determine the rules for live animal exports pertaining to Northern Ireland, as we are part of the United Kingdom and this matter is not devolved. We are always told, “This is a devolved issue. Let the Northern Ireland Assembly decide on it.” The matter is not devolved and, as I have said, animal welfare is a priority for so many. This is our Parliament, yet the Government appear content to allow those with no democratic mandate to determine laws within a part of the UK. The Windsor framework and protocol leave us a place apart. I urge the Minister to accept, without a Division, this simple ask, which would allow us to stay aligned with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate on the instruction. I should be clear at the outset that I do not intend to detain the House any longer than is needed, but I think it is important to say a few words on the instruction.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is rightly proud of Northern Ireland’s history and heritage within our United Kingdom, and he will find no disagreement from Labour on that. I reassure him that I heard his concerns clearly and have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of his points. As we consider the instruction before the House, I want to be clear that this is an important Bill, and a Bill that would be strengthened by the amendments in my name on the Order Paper. The issues it pertains to are long overdue for attention and action.
There is not often much agreement between Labour and the Government, but we agree on this. Labour will not be able to support the instruction in the name of the right hon. Member for East Antrim, because if we accepted the instruction and the follow-through of its intent, we would put the United Kingdom Government at risk of breaching World Trade Organisation rules and guidelines, and that is not a situation we can be in. However much we may want to play politics, we need to put the people and trade of this country first, along with the Good Friday agreement.
I accept that the Democratic Unionists will be frustrated if the instruction is not approved by the House and that, without it, they will not be able to secure the changes they want, but given the nature of the situation, the instruction simply will not work at this time and on this issue. Therefore, if pushed to a Division, Labour will oppose it.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
The instruction would need to be agreed if we are to consider certain amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in Committee of the whole House. I am enormously sympathetic to his plight and arguments. I am grateful to him for meeting me privately last week to discuss his proposals, which seek to add Northern Ireland to the territorial scope of the Bill. In effect, his proposal is that the ban on livestock exports for slaughter would apply on a UK-wide basis, rather than GB-wide.
There is a crucial difference, as he is aware, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK with respect to the movement of livestock. Farmers in Northern Ireland routinely move animals to the Republic of Ireland for slaughter and fattening. Indeed, in 2022, around 3,500 cattle, 17,000 pigs and 337,000 sheep were moved in that way. The Bill must not jeopardise the access that Northern Irish farmers have to the Republic. That is a point on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman and I agree, as all hon. Members across the House would. His aim is to create a targeted exemption to the expanded ban: the prohibition would not apply to slaughter movements with an end destination in the Republic of Ireland. Unfortunately, that proposal is not an option that is available to us. That is because a range of international agreements and their core principles, including WTO rules, prevent discrimination against different countries in that way. Given that such a carve-out is not possible, extending the Bill to Northern Ireland would end all livestock exports for slaughter and fattening from Northern Ireland, including to the Republic of Ireland, and that is why the Bill is drafted in that respect on its territorial extent.
Sammy Wilson
The Minister knows that eight exceptions are listed by the WTO where it is possible to target trade interventions, and one of them is on the basis of animal health. Does he accept that taking animals from the north of Northern Ireland through the whole island of Ireland, on a 24-hour boat journey to southern France or southern Spain without food, risks animal health and is therefore an exception that we should at least be testing with the WTO, but we cannot do that if we do not accept the instruction?
Mark Spencer
As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our discussions last week, I am enormously sympathetic to his view but, as he will be aware, those movements from the Republic of Ireland to the continent of Europe are a matter for the European Union. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). My understanding is that the EU is looking at some of those rules as we speak. That is, of course, a matter for the Republic of Ireland and the EU, and we cannot in this House legislate for other nations.
If we were to transpose “Republic of Ireland” and “Belgium”, for example, other nations would challenge completely one nation being favoured above others. We could not say, “We won’t export animals for fattening or slaughter to anywhere in the world, apart from Belgium.” That would be challenged instantly by the international trade bodies, and we would lose in court—that is the legal advice I have been given—so the Government are not in a position to put forward legislation that we know is not legally sound.
I am enormously sympathetic to the view of the right hon. Member for East Antrim and, of course, I agree with him. I do not want to see sheep and cattle moved from Belfast all the way to Madrid. That is not what we want to see happen, but we do not have the power to stop that at this moment. That is why it is critical that we protect the Northern Irish economy. Extending livestock exports from Northern Ireland in that way would be devastating if we were to stop them moving to the Republic. I understand his desire for a modified ban to apply in Northern Ireland. However, it is just not possible under our international obligations, and making such a provision for the whole of the United Kingdom in this Bill is not appropriate at this time. I therefore appeal to him, respectfully and hopefully, to find a way to withdraw his motion, in the knowledge that we have enormous sympathy for his position.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Having listened intently to the Minister and to my friends on the Opposition Benches, and having served in Northern Ireland as a Minister and in other roles, my question is this: what is to stop—as we are trying to do—the live transportation of animals for slaughter going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and then going on? We are not preventing something that we are trying to prevent. I know the legal advice, but sometimes Ministers have to challenge the legal advice. I am not saying that the legal advice is right or wrong, but sometimes it has to be challenged. It clearly does not make sense if we can move animals around inside Great Britain and transport them to Northern Ireland, and then say to Northern Ireland, “You can’t adhere to the rules in the rest in the United Kingdom.” Do not get me wrong, I am very supportive of this Bill, and I do not want to jeopardise it in any shape or form, but there seems to be a conflict of interest between what we are trying to do as a Government and what we are succeeding in doing, which is alienating the farmers of Northern Ireland.
Mark Spencer
I am grateful for that intervention. It is important, first, to remember that we are talking only about animals being exported for either fattening or for slaughter. Under the phytosanitary rules of the island of Ireland, the movement of cattle, sheep or pigs from England to Northern Ireland will then incur a 30-day standstill within Northern Ireland before they can be moved to the Republic. That makes it not commercially viable to use that route to get to slaughter or to fattening. I hope that colleagues will understand with sympathy our frustration that we are unable to extend the rules to Northern Ireland.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the ban on using the Great Britain land bridge for live exports is one of the ways this Bill will provide big barriers to live exports continuing from Northern Ireland?
Mark Spencer
My right hon. Friend is right in that live exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic will be able to continue; that is good for the Northern Irish agricultural economy and we do not want to stop that trade. However, this Bill, when we get to debating the actual Bill, is about stopping those long journeys from GB into continental Europe. We have not seen those since Brexit, but we want to ensure that they cannot return in the near future.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Would the Minister term the conundrum posed by the Democratic Unionist party as one of the Brexit benefits that the Government have so often extolled the virtues of?
Mark Spencer
This Bill is genuinely a Brexit benefit: we are able to take control of our ports within GB and stop the live export of animals for slaughter or for fattening. That is a genuine Brexit benefit and one that I hope we can now start to debate. I hope the right hon. Member for East Antrim will withdraw his motion.
Sammy Wilson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:03 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 16, after “goats,” insert “(da) alpaca,”.
This amendment would add alpacas to the definition of livestock covered by the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, page 1, line 16, after “goats,” insert “(da) deer,”.
This amendment would add deer to the definition of livestock covered by the Bill.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 16, after “goats,” insert “(da) llamas,”.
This amendment would add llamas to the definition of livestock covered by the Bill.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert “(f) reindeer.”
This amendment adds reindeer to the definition of “Relevant livestock”.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the list of ‘relevant livestock’ in subsection (4).
(7B) ‘Appropriate national authority’ in relation to the power under subsection (7A), means—
(a) in relation to livestock kept in England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in respect of livestock kept in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in respect of livestock kept in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.
(7C) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7D) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (7A) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
(7E) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species which may not be exported for slaughter.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 to 7 stand part.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak from the Opposition Benches on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. We have tabled amendments inspired by Labour’s track record of delivering on animal welfare, from ending the testing of cosmetic products on animals and stopping the cruelty of fur farming to cracking down on horrific hunting practices. They allow us to compare our record with that of this Conservative Government and their shameful failures. They have bottled their manifesto promises to end the import of hunting trophies and crack down on puppy farming, to name just two of their animal welfare failures. As I indicated on Second Reading, Labour welcomes this legislation, but we regret that it has taken so long to bring this unnecessarily cruel trade to an end. We will seek through our amendments to make the Bill as fit for the future as possible.
It will be no surprise to the public that Labour is the party of animal welfare. Before turning to the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I would like to acknowledge and thank the many campaigners and stakeholders watching these proceedings for their hard work, campaigning and commitment. Our amendments do not seek to delay the Bill or to put the Government off doing anything at all. Labour wants to make this Bill as strong and purposeful as possible and see it signed into law at the earliest opportunity.
The Tories have taken a weak approach to animal welfare in recent years, from pulling Bills that were meant to be debated in this place to caving in to the extremists on their Back Benches.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Labour party has long called for a ban on live exports for fattening and slaughter from and through Great Britain. Why does my hon. Friend think the Government have taken so long to bring in this Bill and why does she think they scrapped the Kept Animals Bill?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am not sure I know the answer to those questions, and I would be grateful if the Minister answered them in his winding-up speech. The delay has been too long, as my hon. Friend says, and for too long animals have continued to suffer unnecessarily. That is why amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 are necessary and I am delighted to speak in support of them today.
The Minister will know that the export of live animals from the UK grew substantially during the 1960s and 1970s. Live sheep exports ranged between 85,000 to 411,000 from the 1960s to the 1980s. At the same time beef and veal, including live exports, increased from approximately 65,000 in the early 1970s to nearer 200,000 in the 1980s, and live pig exports rose dramatically from 30,000 to 60,000 in the 1970s, peaking at 619,000 in 1982.
Those dramatic rises and the patterns we have seen more recently make amendments 2, 3 and 4 more important. They are probing and preventive in equal measure. The amendments force us to think about the macro picture facing us and highlight a major inadequacy in this Bill: Ministers have chosen to list the species covered by this legislation on the face of the Bill. We agree and support covering the listed species, but what happens when they are banned? Where will those seeking to profit from the live export of animals look next? With apologies for the pun, Mr Evans, which species and which animals will be moved up the pecking order?
Amendments 2, 3 and 4, like amendment 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), which we support, would help to force Ministers to take up and recognise a comprehensive, bigger-picture approach—not a race to the bottom to get the bare minimum over the line and no more of a Government simply wanting an easy life. We will demonstrate to our constituents, from Newport West to Northampton North and from Epping Forest to Erewash, that this Parliament takes animal welfare seriously and we have a plan to get things right.
I turn now to amendment 5 in my name and those of my colleagues. This important amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species that may not be exported for slaughter. As clause 1 of the Bill sets out, the prohibition on live exports would currently apply to calves, sheep, pigs, wild boar, goats and equines. While those are historically the main farmed animal groups subject to live exports for slaughter, it is not an exclusive list, and other animals could potentially be exported live from GB.
It is also the case that a lack of historical precedent for a particular animal is not a guarantee that live exports will not take place in future, especially as UK livestock farming continues to evolve. That is why we must be vigilant and take whatever preventive measures we can, which we have a unique opportunity to do today with amendment 5.
Labour believes it reasonable for the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay to have the power to extend the export ban to other species if they feel that the science justifies such a move. It may be that the power is never needed, but it seems sensible to allow for the possibility that other species may need to be added to the exclusion list in future, without the need for further primary legislation. Amendment 5 would provide that power, enabling the Secretary of State in England, and Ministers in Scotland and Wales, to add groups of livestock to the Bill through a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. That would effectively future-proof the Bill and properly make it fit for purpose.
Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)
I am proud to support the Bill and the Labour party’s amendments to add deer, alpacas and llamas to the livestock covered by the ban. However, I am conscious that the Government faltered on ending imports of hunting trophies and shied away from cracking down on puppy farming, so how can we ensure that the Bill will be properly enforced if our amendments are successful?
Ruth Jones
My new hon. Friend is quite right: we must ensure that we future-proof the Bill today. I am not convinced at the moment that the Government are completely sympathetic to all our amendments, which I find surprising.
If the Minister is looking for comparable examples, a similar power exists in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Section 5(2) essentially states that, should the science materialise in sufficient strength to persuade the Secretary of State of the need to identify other animals as sentient beings, other species can be added to the legislation via secondary legislation. The suggested addition to this Bill would follow that precedent, and I urge the Minister to do the right thing by accepting the amendment. If he does not want to do it for me, I hope that he will do it because the Minister who took the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act through the House, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), did exactly the same thing, for which I pay tribute to her.
This simple, holistic measure could help to expedite the progression of the Bill through Parliament. Would not that be a good thing for one and all? I want the Minister to know that in tabling amendment 5, I am trying to be helpful. I hope that he will accept my help and amendment 5. If the same principle is good for some animal welfare legislation, it has to be good for all animal welfare legislation.
Let me turn to the other amendments before the Committee. I have already indicated that amendment 1—rather like my amendments 2, 3 and 4—will do important work and would have the support of the Labour party if pushed to a vote. Today we are seeking to amend the Bill to ban the live exports of alpacas, llamas and deer, and to ensure that species can be added to the legislation at a later date. It is about future-proofing the legislation and making it fit for purpose. Amendment 5 is important.
I noted today a very interesting piece in The Telegraph, of which I know the Minister is an avid reader, talking about constituency-led multi-level regression and post-stratification polling carried out in September 2023. It found that more than two thirds of the British public feel that a political party that announced plans to pass more laws designed to improve animal welfare and protect animals from cruelty would have the right priorities. I hope that the Minister will accept our amendments, or, if not, be as detailed as possible in explaining his excuses. The people of this country are crying out for change and for a Government with the right priorities. If the Tories cannot deliver that, they should get out of the way, because we can.
Theresa Villiers
I am delighted that the strong cross-party support for the Bill is evident in the Chamber this evening. We all want to end live exports. After the disappointments of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, it is heartening to see the rapid progress that this new Bill is making through the House. The earlier Bill was blighted by a range of Opposition amendments on other issues that were not relevant to the core problem of preventing animals from suffering in long-distance transportation. I welcome the fact that the amendments tabled for today are less controversial and more specific to the matter that the Bill seeks to address.
I would certainly like to see the ban on live exports apply to Northern Ireland, but I am also very much aware of the need to comply with international trade rules. Animals are routinely moved across the border into the south for slaughter. Those are essentially local movements, so they do not give rise to the same animal welfare concerns as long-distance transportation and exports. Preventing those north-to-south movements entirely would be problematic, but finding a way to legislate to allow those exports to the Republic of Ireland to continue while stopping all others from the UK is not straightforward, particularly as the most favoured nation principle means that whatever trade benefits we give to one country outside of a formal trade agreement should generally be offered to all trading partners. I accept that there are exceptions to that, some of which include public concerns and ethical considerations, but it is a problem that is not easy to solve.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind hon. Members that the occupant of this Chair is acting not as Deputy Speaker, but as Chair of the Committee of the whole House—I did try, but anyway, we all now know.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Chair.
This is an issue that I am personally passionate about—I have spoken on animal welfare issues from both the Back Benches and the Opposition Front Bench many times since coming to this place six years ago. I am very pleased that Labour Front Benchers are supporting the Bill, but recognise the need to strengthen its provisions and for the protection of animal welfare to go much further. All animals deserve protection. I know two things about the British public: one, they are disappointed that it has taken us so long to get to this point; and two, they want to see much more. Where is the ban on keeping primates as pets? Where is the foie gras ban? Where is the action on puppy smuggling, and why has the trophy hunting ban not gone through as an Act?
The Bill is long overdue. In the 2019 general election, the Conservative party included this prohibition and many other animal welfare policies in its manifesto. Five years have passed, and we have had setback after setback. Maybe that reflects the number of Prime Ministers we have had over that period and their varying views on animal welfare, but this is the last in a series of delays that are being put right. Last year, when I was a Front Bencher, I was hugely disappointed that the Government abandoned the kept animals Bill. When I was at the Dispatch Box trying to bring that Bill back, they even voted against a number of their own policies. The British public will not forget. Maybe the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is different now, but the Minister is the same Minister who opposed us on that occasion. How many animals have needlessly suffered because of this delay? There are victims here—it is not a victimless delay.
It took a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) to tackle animal exploitation in the wild tourism industry, a measure that we all supported. The approach of the Government for a whole year, which they now seem to have abandoned, was to try to achieve animal welfare improvements through private Members’ Bills. I am glad that we are now back to having Government Bills on these issues, but where is the animals abroad Bill?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Just to help the hon. Member, could he refer to the amendments or new clauses that he is addressing? His speech sounds awfully like a Second Reading speech.
Alex Sobel
Thank you, Chair. I will come to those now.
The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) include a number of provisions to extend the scope of the Bill. I want to say a little bit about alpacas, which I believe are dealt with in amendment 2. In my constituency, I have seen a growth in alpaca farming. There are alpacas in Cookridge in my constituency, on the way to Leeds Bradford airport; Meanwood Valley urban farm, which is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), has alpacas; and, on Queensway in Yeadon, I recently spotted a number of alpacas in a field. This is clearly an area of expansion in the British farming industry, but there is also now quite a lot of alpaca breeding, so there is no need to export live alpacas to this country, because there is sufficient depth of alpaca farming to carry on that work. The same goes for other animals, including llamas and deer. We are overrun with deer; we certainly do not need the export of them.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Being overrun with deer is usually a forestry issue. They are wild animals and are not covered by this Bill, and they are certainly not covered by these amendments.
Alex Sobel
I thank the right hon. Member. Obviously, there are wild deer and deer farmed for venison; both types exist in this country.
I do not want to hold up the debate for too long, so I will conclude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, the Labour party is the party of animal welfare—that is a strong priority for Labour. We have long called for a ban on live export for slaughter. Every year, millions of farm animals are at risk of facing long-distance journeys, including the new animals that we have tabled amendments to cover. Amendment 5 aims to future-proof the Bill. Particularly as the climate changes, farming will change, and we need to be able to evolve and update the legislation as practices change. I support amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend, and I hope to see the Bill go much further.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. It is absolutely right that we ban the disgusting practice of live export for slaughter. We have driven it from Dover, and when the Bill becomes law, it will mean that it cannot come back. That is fantastic news.
This is an issue of great interest and impact for my constituency, because at the peak of that activity, we saw 100 transportations through the port of Dover. Excellent local campaigners, particularly Yvonne and Ian Birchall from Kent Action Against Live Exports, have worked tirelessly over decades to get us to this position, and I congratulate them on that. They have been very diligent in keeping me and many Members from across the House informed of the pernicious activities involved in this particularly despicable trade, but I have never heard them mention a concern about reindeer, which are dealt with in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I will come on to the other breeds mentioned in the amendments that are before the Committee.
This issue is still live in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. It came to the fore with the introduction of Irish Ferries, which became the third ferry provider into Dover a short time ago. I strongly welcome Irish Ferries to Dover, but when that company arrived, I had to seek assurances from it that it would not be engaging in live exports across the channel. The reason for that has been very well explored in the instruction debate: it is something that can and does happen in the island of Ireland. In relation to the land bridge issue, it is concerning that a difference between parts of our United Kingdom will continue to exist. It is unfortunate that a change as important as the one we are making today, which is enabled by our Brexit freedoms, throws fresh light on a gap that has been growing since the implementation of the Windsor framework. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the effectiveness of the road bridge, because we are legislating, which means that this issue is important enough to legislate on. An answer that relies on a commercial solution suggests a weaker position in relation to that land bridge than some of us would like to see.
Let me turn to the Opposition’s amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). I note that it seeks to apply a regulatory extension—secondary legislation—for deer, llamas and alpaca in relation to this important issue. I am mindful that even the campaign group Compassion in World Farming has said in the last 48 hours that it is not aware of any activity that would fall into the fattening and slaughter definition we are looking at today for those particular breeds. The reason I draw this to the Minister’s attention is the context of the comments he made about the World Trade Organisation and other international trading laws to which the UK is subject. I pause at that point to repeat that those are laws to which the UK as a whole is subject, not just Great Britain.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the remaining speakers that they should be focusing on the amendments and clauses. They should be speaking to those, not making a Second Reading debate speech.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Of course, my party tabled amendments to the Bill that cannot be discussed and decided on because of the House’s earlier decision about the instruction to include Northern Ireland in the scope of the Bill. We will support many of the amendments that have been tabled, because we believe that the scope of the Bill should be as wide as possible and that while it mentions specific animals, there are other animals that may well be subject to exports in the future.
I do not know if those who tabled the amendments have noted the irony of what we are discussing. This is a Bill to ban the export of live animals, and we are seeking by various amendments to make sure that any other animals not named in the Bill can also be included. Here is the irony: since 2020, the area of the United Kingdom to which the Bill applies has not exported any live animals; the only part of the United Kingdom where there are substantial exports of live animals is the part of the United Kingdom that is not included in this Bill. I do not know if people have noticed the irony of that.
In fact, I remember that at the time when there was criticism of the Government for not bringing forward this legislation, one of their defences was that we had not had any live exports. Of course, we could have live exports in the future, but the Bill addresses an issue that is not an issue for the area included in the scope of the Bill and it ignores the part of the United Kingdom where there are massive exports. Some speakers have said that at least the problem of exports will be made a bit less of an issue because the land bridge is no longer available for exports from Northern Ireland to the rest of Europe. However, that is not the answer, because exporters will of course simply use a more circular and tortuous journey through the Irish Republic.
I first became involved in this issue maybe 20 years ago when I was on a motorbike holiday through the Alps in France. I had not spoken to anybody who could speak English for about two weeks, and I noticed a lorry with a Northern Ireland registration number. I was a member of Belfast City Council at the time, and we had closed our abattoir because the conditions did not meet EU standards. I thought, “There’s somebody from Northern Ireland. I’m going to follow that lorry, and when it stops, at least I’ll have somebody I can talk to.” I thought I would find somebody who could speak English and could understand my sort of English.
I followed the lorry along a long and windy road through the Alps outside a town called Nyons, and it finally stopped at an abattoir in a small village and unloaded its sheep. The sheep came from outside Ballymena, and the driver told me they had come down through the Irish Republic, across the sea, through France and up into the Alps. That journey had taken me on a motorbike—and not because I was going slow either—about three days, and these animals were being transferred to a slaughterhouse. Because I was interested in the issue, I wanted to see what the slaughterhouse was like. We had closed that slaughterhouse in Belfast, but the place to which these animals were being transferred for slaughter from Northern Ireland was like an outhouse of the slaughterhouse that we had closed in Northern Ireland because it did not meet EU standards.
That awoke me to the issue, because I did not think that animals were transported such a distance. This Bill, even with the amendments that have been tabled, will still leave that route open. The objective that the Government are seeking to achieve will not be achieved. It is ironic that we have a Bill about animal welfare that ignores the main source of concern about the transport of animals across the continent of Europe.
I know what the Minister said about the challenges, but I wonder whether he has considered the challenges for this Bill under WTO rules, which the Library has highlighted. There is a reason for not including Northern Ireland, but would he like to comment on the challenges that the Government anticipate may occur and what their response would be? Are they going to use the response of making exceptions?
Lastly—I emphasised this in my speech earlier and other Members have mentioned it—unlike the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who is not here, I am more concerned about the objective of the Bill of protecting the welfare of animals than about protecting the relationship we have, through the Windsor framework, with the EU. I find it disgraceful that someone who represents a constituency where I know there is large concern about animal welfare is more concerned about keeping good relations with the EU than respecting and dealing with animal welfare considerations in the region with the biggest exports of live animals in the United Kingdom.
I wish the Bill well, and it may well be that without it there would be a return to live animal exports. It may well be that it is addressing a problem that is not there in GB. It is there in Northern Ireland, but it is not going to be addressed. I hope there will not be a loophole, because unfortunately, as a result of the agreements that the Government have made with the EU in respect of Northern Ireland, even the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has spent so much time on, is in jeopardy of being circumvented, because the hunting trophy exports could come through Northern Ireland and get into GB. That is one of the problems that need to be addressed, and it will not be addressed by this legislation, which will only exacerbate the difference between the part of the United Kingdom that I belong to and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking eloquently this evening on two important principles that I hope every Member of the House will support: the principle of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the principle of ending suffering through improved animal welfare. While I am sorry that the amendment he sought did not come to a vote this evening, I hope that the Government will reflect on the fact that, whether it is in live animal exports from the United Kingdom or the importation of the body parts of endangered species, those principles of the whole Union and animal welfare should be paramount.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I hope the Minister will listen to, because otherwise—despite all the amendments that have been tabled and that, if pushed to a vote, we will support—the problem will still exist, it will not have been addressed and the protection of animals that the Bill is designed to provide will not be fulfilled.
Sir Mike Penning
I rise to speak about the amendments, in particular those tabled by the Opposition Front Benchers. They did so in good faith, but I do think there are issues with them. If we look at this issue as a nation and are honest about why there has been so little or no exporting of live animals, it is public opinion that made that happen. That is what stopped it at Dover and some of the smaller ports.
I had the honour of being a researcher for the late and departed Sir Teddy Taylor, the former MP for Rochford and Southend East. Among many things, he campaigned hard to ban the live export of animals. Before I came into this House, I did a little bit of journalism among many other things, and as journalists, we followed lorries, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) did, down to Italy, believe it or not, without them stopping for fodder or water.
I get where the amendments are coming from, but to suggest that animals such as llamas or deer might at some future time be moved for fattening and slaughter is stretching the imagination. This place is for debate. The Labour Front Benchers disagree with me—I absolutely get that—but I am sent here to express a view. We have major problems with deer in our forests—not just muntjac, but other species—to such an extent that some farmers are going to give up their leases on some of the National Trust land they farm. They say it is not viable. We are not going to export those deer—we will not send them across for fattening. Llamas are not going to be sent for fattening and slaughter. The Bill is targeted at an industry.
I have every sympathy with my friends from Northern Ireland, and I know exactly where they are coming from, but it will not be financially viable for wholesalers—that is normally who it is—to take cattle from the Province into the Republic and send them on that huge sea journey. That journey is not cost-effective and just will not happen.
We are sent here to protect and not just to talk about financial viability, and this Bill is important. Yes, I would like to have seen it earlier, as I think we all would. It was a manifesto commitment that I stood on, and I think manifesto commitments are important. However, we cannot divide this sovereign Parliament and give those duties to, for instance, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I do not think that is right; it is for this country to set what is right and wrong in terms of those international obligations.
Sammy Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman said that the closure of the land bridge will make it less commercial for animals to be exported that way. I had a response from an agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland talking about the export of animals from Northern Ireland via Dublin and then on to Rosslare and Le Havre. He said:
“Analysis by my officials has shown that calves exported from Northern Ireland via a Republic of Ireland port (Dublin or Rosslare) are rested on the truck in the Republic of Ireland for at least one hour before sailing to France. It has not been considered necessary to date to feed the calves during this rest period to achieve compliance with the EU regulation”.
The practice was already happening before this legislation. It closes one route—the land bridge—but is likely to lead to even greater suffering. The EU regulations and Department officials do not even consider it cruel to rest the animals for one hour and then send them on a 24-hour boat journey without any food.
Sir Mike Penning
This House thinks the practice is cruel, and that is why we are changing things with this legislation today. Frankly, what our European friends do, now that we are out of there, is down to them. We can talk to them, be friends with them and do lots of things with them, but we do not have to do what they tell us to do anymore. That is crucial.
There is one amendment that I would have been the first to support, had the Opposition or the Government wanted to table it, and that is on foie gras. I cannot understand why they have not. I spoke on Second Reading about amendments that should have been tabled. Why on earth is something whose production is banned in this country, because it is cruel, allowed to be imported and sold in this country? That is a mistake in the Bill. I am sure that amendments might be tabled in the other House. If they were tabled in this House, they would be agreed. Those amendments should be made to the Bill, but perhaps I will speak a bit more on that on Third Reading.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak tonight in favour of the Labour amendments and to briefly pay tribute to constituents who have raised these important matters with me and other colleagues. I stress the significant public interest in this issue. Like other colleagues, I have had a large amount of correspondence. We all want to see this change. We do not want to see live animal exports in any shape or form, and I appreciate the effort my colleagues have gone to in identifying future risks, which should be taken seriously.
I welcome the legislation, but I regret the delays in it coming to the House. I also ask the Government again to support wider measures to improve animal welfare. I commend the work of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) who just spoke about the possibility of tackling foie gras. Those are serious points, and the hon. Member for Crawley has done excellent work on trophy hunting. I was proud to be able to support that work.
I will turn to the Labour amendments, which are in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). As she said, the Bill leaves open the possibility of other animals being exploited. She is right to point that out, because some of the species mentioned in the Labour amendments are farmed in the UK. There is deer farming and the hunting of deer in woodland. I have seen llamas being farmed in the Thames valley. I understand there is a possibility that these species could be traded. I am concerned by that, and we are right to raise these points from the Opposition Benches.
The point that my hon. Friend made about the way that the live animal export trade developed rapidly and expanded between 10 and 20 times in scale over a 10-year period is a salutary reminder of what some unscrupulous business people are willing to do in this industry. I urge the Government to think again about these probing amendments, which are wise and sensible and highlight some serious future risks as agriculture changes and develops. We would be wise to address that by looking at the species in the amendments and adding them to the Bill to ensure that those animals are protected in the same way as other animals. I urge Ministers to consider the thoughtful amendments tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of Labour’s amendments 2 to 5, particularly those regarding banning the live export of alpacas, llamas and deer, and ensuring that species can be added to the legislation at a later date. As the shadow Minister said, Labour supports the Bill, but the amendments would ensure that the legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose.
The ending of the cruel trade in live exports for slaughter and fattening is long overdue. Millions of farmed animals are at risk of facing long journeys, which can cause mental exhaustion, physical injuries, hunger, dehydration and stress because, as we know, animal welfare can be compromised during long-distance live transport, which can include inappropriate stocking densities, inadequate ventilation and temperature control systems, and unsuitable feeding and watering facilities.
As has been mentioned, proposals to ban livestock exports were previously included in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was thrown out by the Government last May, but the public have been pressing for urgent action. A recent parliamentary petition calling for the UK Government to
“Find the time to take the Kept Animals Bill through Parliament and make it law”
was signed by more than 100,000 UK residents. My constituents across Luton, Caddington, Slip End and Hyde feel strongly about this issue, whether they are farmers who care deeply for the living standards of their livestock or consumers who expect to be able to buy ethically reared produce.
Labour has long called for a ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through Great Britain. We recognise that it is important not only to pass the Bill but to table amendments to improve it as an important step in asserting our reputation as a nation of animal lovers prepared to act against any cruel treatment that they face. In fact, Labour has a track record of doing so in government, from ending the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998 to stopping the cruelty of fur farming in 2000, the introduction of the Hunting Act 2004, and bringing in the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006. Unlike Labour with those actions, the Government have dithered and delayed somewhat, as has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House. They delayed action on livestock exports and reneged on a manifesto promise to end, as was so eloquently put previously, the sickening import of hunting trophies.
I reiterate my support for amendments 2 to 5. I welcome the Bill’s ending of livestock exports and the fact that it will contribute to continuing on the path to improving animal welfare standards.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Dame Eleanor. I will speak from a Scottish perspective. The Bill legislates in an area that is largely devolved to Scotland and the Scottish Government, and we in the SNP are committed to maintaining high animal welfare standards and protecting our farmers and our agricultural communities. The Scottish Government have given consent to the Bill, and the relevant legislative consent motion has been laid in Holyrood by the Scottish Minister. The SNP Scottish Government prefer consistent animal transport legislation right across Great Britain and that, of course, makes it necessary to have UK-level regulation in this area. However, we must continue to make it clear that any changes must not disadvantage Scottish farmers, particularly regarding livestock movements between the Scottish islands and the Scottish mainland. The Bill does indeed make provisions in this area and seeks to protect Scotland’s unique characteristics in doing so.
In relation to amendments 2 to 4, tabled by the Opposition, and indeed amendment 1 tabled by the Liberal Democrats, we see no notable cause for concern. We are supportive of the aims of amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on the Opposition Front Bench, so should the Government not agree to the amendment and the House divide later tonight, we would vote for it.
The SNP and the Scottish Government stand resolute in their commitment to safeguarding animal welfare, pledging to legislate continuously to enhance the wellbeing of animals both in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. As we forge ahead, we are looking to ensure that our actions align with our values of compassion and responsibility towards the animals that share this world with us.
I will have more to say in the remaining stages of the Bill, but for now I thank all those interested parties, stakeholders and animal welfare activists and campaigners on reaching this milestone. It has been two years and four DEFRA Ministers since the kept animals Bill was first mooted—and, of course, shelved. There is so much more work to be done in specific areas; we can go into more of that at the next stage. It is pleasing for many interested parties across the United Kingdom that we have reached this point, and I congratulate them on that.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I am delighted to speak to the amendments and grateful to hon. Members for their continued interest and engagement in ensuring that this ban on live animal exports for slaughter is effective and comprehensive. The question of which species should be included in the ban is indeed crucial and is one to which we have given careful consideration. When we carried out a wide-ranging consultation on banning live exports in 2020, we were clear about the species that we were seeking to apply the ban to. We received no evidence then, and have received none since, that a ban on other species was at all necessary.
In the 10 years prior to EU exit, the live export trade for slaughter and for fattening mainly involved sheep and unweaned calves. The numbers of deer, llamas and alpacas kept in the UK are extremely low compared with the species for which a significant slaughter export trade had existed in the past. For example, the June 2021 agriculture census records showed that there were about 45,000 farmed deer, 12,000 alpacas and 1,000 llamas in the United Kingdom, compared with 33 million sheep and 10 million cattle. About 35,000 cattle and 220,000 sheep are slaughtered every week in England and Wales.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is not in his place, on his concerns in relation to his amendment about reindeer. Although reindeer are kept in the UK, they are not really farmed, and they are small in number. Of course, they are imported mostly for use in visitor attractions, especially at Christmas.
We are not aware that any species proposed in the amendments are exported for slaughter or for fattening. It is important to make that distinction: we are talking about the export of animals for slaughter and for fattening. The numbers of llamas and alpacas might be increasing, but they are not consumed as meat in the United Kingdom. Although there is no evidence of demand for trade in live exports from the EU to elsewhere, the definition of relevant livestock covers all live exports where major animal welfare concerns have been identified and a trade existed in the past.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Minister is detailing the species involved in the Bill and those potentially not involved. I heard what my friends in the Democratic Unionist party said about animal health and welfare issues in Northern Ireland, and I am sympathetic, not least on the supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland. Although the point has been made that there have not been live exports from the mainland since Brexit, the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee has taken much evidence from World Horse Welfare—horse is a species included in the Bill—that hundreds if not thousands of horses have been illegally exported to Europe under the guise of sport or breeding when they were actually for slaughter. This welcome Bill will stop that illegal movement of horses.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for not only his comments but his campaigning against the export of horses for slaughter. He is a tenacious campaigner in this area and I pay tribute to him for his work.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that he wants to do that at this stage, or does he want to save it for Third Reading, where it would be more appropriate?
The Chairman
I am suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman might not want to do that.
Mark Spencer
I am not someone who understands subtlety all the time, but on this occasion you seem to have broken through, Dame Eleanor. I will take your inspiration and leave my comments for Third Reading.
I hope I have done enough to reassure colleagues across the House that the amendments are not necessary, but we take them seriously. To be clear, if there were a change in the dietary habits of our colleagues in the European Union, and they decided to consume other species of animal such as llamas, alpacas, squirrels or whatever, we would be able to come back to this House to introduce new legislation to stop that trade. But at this time, the Bill covers all those necessary exports. I hope that colleagues will decline the amendments and support the Bill as tabled.
Ruth Jones
I do not wish to detain the House any longer than strictly necessary. I welcome the speed with which we have gone through the Committee stage this evening, but it beggars belief that it has taken so long to bring this unnecessarily cruel trade to an end. That is why Labour supports the Bill. We have long called for the ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through Great Britain. It has already been said in expert speeches that, every year, millions of farmed animals are at risk of facing long-distance journeys to export them for fattening and slaughter, causing unnecessary suffering. We are willing to withdraw amendments 2 to 4, but we wish to pursue amendment 5. I will leave it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 5, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(7A) An appropriate national authority may by regulations extend the list of “relevant livestock” in subsection (4).
(7B) “Appropriate national authority” in relation to the power under subsection (7A), means—
(a) in relation to livestock kept in England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in respect of livestock kept in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in respect of livestock kept in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.
(7C) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7D) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (7A) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
(7E) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”—(Ruth Jones.)
This amendment would allow the appropriate national authority to extend, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, the list of livestock species which may not be exported for slaughter.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mark Spencer
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a privilege to shepherd the Bill through the House, delivering on our manifesto commitment to end live animal exports.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. We are happy to see the legislation, although I am disappointed that no amendments were made. The Government have already got rid of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. They stated that they expected legislation to cover further areas of animal welfare through private Members’ Bills, and so on, but we have seen only one private Member’s Bill relating to animal welfare. Does the Minister expect further legislation on animal welfare—for instance on puppy smuggling—and if so, when?
Mark Spencer
A number of Opposition Members have commented that the Government have done very little for animal welfare. It is worth my pointing out that we have recognised animal sentience in law, and launched the committee that will advise the Government on how policy decisions should be made. We have ramped up enforcement. We have increased the maximum sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years of imprisonment. We have launched the consultation on financial penalty notices, with the power to charge up to £5,000 in fines, in addition to existing penalties under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We have introduced new protections for service animals under Finn’s law. We have improved farm animal welfare. We have launched the animal health and welfare pathways, with new annual vet visits and grants for farmers.
We have implemented a revised welfare-at-slaughter regime, and introduced CCTV in all slaughterhouses. We have banned traditional battery cages for laying hens, and permitted beak-trimming only via infrared technology. We have raised standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare. We have revamped the local authority licensing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays. We have banned third party puppy and kitten sales with Lucy’s law. We have made microchipping compulsory for cats and dogs. We have introduced offences of horse fly-grazing and abandonment. We have introduced new community order powers to address dog issues. We have provided valuable new protections for wild animals, and have banned wild animals in travelling circuses. We have passed the Ivory Act 2018, including one of the toughest bans on elephant ivory sales—[Interruption.] I have a long way to go yet. We have given the police additional powers to tackle hare coursing. We have banned glue traps. We have supported private Members’ Bills which were passed in the last Session, including the Bill to ban the trade in detached shark fins, and launched the consultation to ban the keeping of primates as pets.
Apart from those few items, we have done very little.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for going through such a detailed and lengthy list; I can only apologise for interrupting him. That list clearly shows that the Government have animal welfare at the heart of their policies. On behalf of the people of South Leicestershire and on behalf of animal welfare organisations such as the excellent Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I thank the Government for doing the right thing.
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am also grateful to all my colleagues who have supported the legislation during its passage through the House.
Mark Spencer
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I will come back to the hon. Lady.
Tim Loughton
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Given the hugely impressive list that the Minister has just read out, putting the United Kingdom in the vanguard of animal welfare matters—and this is yet another piece of trailblazing legislation to add to that—is there any indication that our former European Union partners are intending to follow suit and up their game in this regard when it comes to the transport of live animals?
Mark Spencer
As my hon. Friend will know, I am not responsible for EU legislation. During conversations with friends in the EU, I have been told that they are currently looking at the issue of live animal transport, but that is, of course, a matter for them.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I, too, thank the Minister and the Government for their fantastic legislation and great track record, of which we can be truly proud. Is it not the case that this Bill would not have been possible when we were EU members, and that we have put right that wrong? I urge the EU to catch up.
Mark Spencer
I have held the hon. Lady back for too long, so I will give way, but I am conscious that we need to move on.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the Minister for giving way. I shall be very quick.
With respect to the Minister, I did not ask him what the Government had done; I asked him what measures that were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was thrown out by the Government, we might expect to see in the future. I know what the Government have done, because I pay attention. I am asking what they intend to do.
Mark Spencer
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that tonight is a big step forward. We have a huge chunk of the kept animals Bill, and I believe that early in March there will be a private Member’s Bill, on which we will of course deliver. Let me contrast that with what happened under Labour by taking the hon. Lady back to July 2009. This was the answer to a question from a Labour Member about what Labour intended to do about the export of live animals:
“The export of live animals is a lawful trade and to restrict it would be contrary to free trade rules. Such trade must, though, adhere to the standards set out in health and welfare rules.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 716W.]
The Labour Government had the opportunity to do this in 2009, and chose not to.
Let me now turn to Third Reading. I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I am hugely grateful to Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill and have been present during its passage to ensure that this trade is consigned to history. I know that the topic of live exports is close to the hearts of a great many Members, and it is been cheering and wonderful to hear so many parliamentarians speak in support of the Bill.
Sammy Wilson
While the Minister is receiving accolades from the Members behind him for the work that he has done on animal welfare, may I express, on behalf of people in Northern Ireland, the disappointment that is felt about the fact that a Conservative and Unionist Government have not applied the same law to the place where most live animal exports come from? The Minister has not extended the animal welfare protections because the Government are more interested in cosying up to the EU than in dealing with the issues that affect people throughout the United Kingdom.
Mark Spencer
I am not going to argue with the right hon. Gentleman. We agree on much more than we disagree on, and I will not sour this moment by being drawn into such an argument. The right hon. Gentleman knows how much sympathy I have for his political desires, and I am enormously sympathetic to his desire to hold the United Kingdom together. He has my commitment to work with him and his colleagues to ensure that the United Kingdom remains intact.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
When the Minister read out that long and impressive list of achievements, I think he failed to mention the complete ban on animal testing, a decision made by the Home Secretary last year. Does he agree that that is yet another example of the Brexit dividend?
Mark Spencer
It was not an extensive list. There are many examples of the Government taking action, and we will continue to do so.
Mark Spencer
I will, because my right hon. Friend has been involved with the Bill throughout its passage.
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the Minister for giving way, because after sitting here for three hours or so, I would have been very disappointed not to be able to bring up the subject of foie gras yet again—you gave me the look, Madam Deputy Speaker, which was understandable. The Minister produced a long list of what we had done, but what we can do in the future is ban the import of foie gras. Its production is banned in this country because it is cruel. Why are we still importing it, and why are we not banning it?
Mark Spencer
The Bill deals with the export of live animals, not the import of products. I am sure that there will be many opportunities for colleagues to continue to raise animal welfare issues, and they will of course have a sympathetic ear from the Government.
Let finally put on record my sincere thanks to animal welfare groups, particularly Compassion in World Farming but also the National Union of Farmers and other stakeholders that have helped with consultation responses, for their support as the Bill has made progress. Let me also thank my excellent civil service colleagues, who have been very supportive throughout the drafting of the Bill, for their work to help bring it to this point. The Bill will reinforce our position as a world leader on animal welfare, and that is something of which we can all be very proud. I look forward to following its progress through the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Ruth Jones
I do not want to detain the House for any longer than is strictly necessary.
This is an important Bill, and I welcome its relatively speedy journey through the House. It beggars belief that it has taken so long to bring an unnecessarily cruel trade to an end, and that is why Labour supports the Bill, even if it is long overdue. Indeed, we have long called for a ban on live exports for slaughter or fattening from or through Great Britain. It has been said already that every year millions of farmed animals risk facing long-distance journeys as they are exported for fattening and slaughter, causing them unnecessary suffering. These journeys can cause animals to become mentally exhausted, physically injured, hungry, dehydrated and stressed, and that is why Labour has sought to strengthen the Bill to make it fully fit for purpose.
The Labour party has a proud track record of delivering progress on animal welfare in government. The Minister has been proud to shout about what his Government have done over the course of 14 long years, but he did not really answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) about their future plans on puppy smuggling, ear cropping and hunting trophy imports, so I look forward to hearing imminent news on those important areas as well. When Labour was in government, we made progress on animal welfare, including ending the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998 and stopping the cruelty of fur farming in 2000. We introduced the Hunting Act in 2004 and we brought in the landmark Animal Welfare Act in 2006. We continue that fine tradition with our support for this Bill tonight.
I would like to acknowledge the team who have worked with me and supported me as the Bill has travelled through the House. I thank my colleagues in the shadow DEFRA team—my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed)—as well as all the people who support us day in, day out, especially Adam Jogee in my office.
I thank all the organisations who have helped, as the Minister has done, including Compassion in World Farming and the NFU. I also acknowledge the work of the officials in the Department and the Minister’s private office, and I am grateful to the Minister—it is not often I say this—for the time he has taken to talk to us. I also thank the wonderful team in the Public Bill Office, who are just brilliant. As the Bill moves on to the other place, my final thanks go to the campaigners, stakeholders and true believers who want realistic, pragmatic and strong animal welfare rules and regulations here in Great Britain.
I wish the Bill well and look forward to proper, timely and real action on animal welfare in the months and years ahead.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading. It was important, when the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was set aside, that a commitment was made to bring legislation forward, and this is a key element of it. It is a key element of our manifesto commitment that we will fulfil, and frankly the other House should stop bleating about this element. We will get the other aspects done. I myself am taking a private Member’s Bill through that covers one elements of the kept animals Bill. We should not be playing tit for tat on this. It is about something that really matters, the welfare of animals, and this is a really important stage.
The Minister has read out a litany of what we have achieved in our time in office. The one person who cannot speak in this debate is my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who took through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 with the support of the Government. As the chief executive of the RSPCA said, that was a monumental moment for animal welfare legislation, empowering the courts to hand out sentences that more accurately reflect the seriousness of these crimes.
I strongly support the Bill. I say to the House, and to the other House, that it is a simple, straightforward Bill and it could get through by the end of March and be done by Easter, without question. This is not the moment to add other elements left, right and centre. Let us keep it simple and keep our manifesto commitments. I hope the House of Lords respects the will of this House, and I look forward to the Bill not coming back but becoming an Act before the end of the spring.
Steven Bonnar
It is a pleasure to speak in the Bill’s Third Reading debate. Before I begin, I thank all Members and parties for the collegiate and cross-party manner in which we have worked to finally drag the Government to this point, as well as to all stakeholders, animal rights campaigners and the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Together, we are resolute in our pursuit to enhance animal welfare standards and we will persist in our legislative efforts to achieve our shared goals. I would like to single out my hon. Friends who sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Angus (Dave Doogan) for their previous excellent work on the Committee and across all matters of animal welfare. I also pay tribute to Josh Simmonds-Upton and Aaron Lukas for their support and for the fantastic amount of work they have put into this area.
As this Parliament comes to an end, after repeated failures by the Government to bring the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill forward, we might finally see a live export ban in the UK that follows the lead and the wishes of the Scottish Government, who have remained steadfast in their determination to see this Bill come to fruition. I say “finally” because it has been two years and four DEFRA Ministers since we first heard of the kept animals Bill, but finally the promised livestock export ban has come.
In Scotland we remain cautious, but why? Because the Bill must be delivered in a way that protects Scotland’s traditional crofting and island communities and does not undermine our agricultural sector. We in the SNP have noted with great concern the dalliance of the UK Government to prioritise animal rights and welfare abuse mitigations by the shelving of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. We are concerned because we are wholly committed to protecting the welfare of animals and will continue to bring forward legislation to improve the welfare of animals in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about how long it has taken to get to this stage. Does he share the concern of many of my constituents that the Government do not seem to be treating animal welfare with any great priority, given the way in which they have treated the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill?
Steven Bonnar
My hon. Friend is right. The reality is that this place does not match the ambition that we have in Scotland and in Holyrood to maintain the highest possible standards of animal welfare, while protecting our communities and the fantastic, exquisite produce that our farmers make.
The Scottish Government have experience in managing stringent animal welfare standards to the highest levels. We are matching the EU’s ambitions, but we are concerned that the UK is lagging behind. There is no question about that. Currently, livestock can move for 28 hours with a one-hour mid-journey break, followed by a 24-hour rest period before the next movement. During these journeys, it is unquestionable that the animals will be distressed, that their normal or instinctive behaviour will be restricted, and that unavoidable vehicle motion might cause stress. Other concerns include exhaustion, dehydration and overcrowding. The Scottish Government’s preference is to have consistent animal transport legislation across Great Britain. That will necessitate UK-level regulation, so the Scottish Minister has tabled a consent motion in the Scottish Parliament.
However, it is important to emphasise that any changes must recognise Scotland’s established patterns of livestock movement from the islands and the remote areas of Scotland to the mainland, and must not disadvantage Scottish farmers and crofters by banning movement between the islands and the mainland. The ban must also not include animals being exported for breeding, which is a vital part of Scotland’s agricultural sector, especially in trade with the Republic of Ireland, as we have heard today.
This is an area of largely devolved policy, and the SNP is determined to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare, as well as to protect our farmers and ensure that our exquisite produce retains its world-beating status. The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure the Bill’s smooth implementation. Our officials remain vigilant, closely monitoring and engaging with DEFRA on matters that might extend into Scotland or potentially impact the country, with a particular focus on livestock exports, which are a vital facet of our agricultural landscape.
Sammy Wilson
I simply want to use the opportunity of Third Reading to emphasise the point I made on Second Reading and in Committee, as we come to the conclusion of the debate on this Bill. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I represent people who believe that being a member of the United Kingdom means that the laws that apply should apply to them as well as to everybody else. I find it obnoxious that a Bill that the Government say is to help animal welfare should not apply to the part of the United Kingdom to which I belong. This is an example of the long-term danger that I and my party have highlighted—namely, that as a result of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol, there will be regulatory divergence, legal divergence and eventually constitutional divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
It does not matter how the Government try to dress it up. I had a long discussion with the Minister last week, and I know he is sincere. I know he has a love for Northern Ireland, but the truth of the matter is that, no matter what he wants and no matter how he views things, he cannot live up to the promise of wanting to work to ensure that the same standards apply in Northern Ireland as apply in other parts of the United Kingdom, because the first duty of this Government, it seems, is to ensure that they do not annoy their masters in Brussels to whom they have subjected themselves as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to this very important issue on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. Does he agree that the notion that the Bill is trailblazing, and the consequent backslapping, sends a dire message to the people of Northern Ireland who want to see us improve and enhance our animal welfare standards even further? The message from this Government is very much that Northern Ireland does not matter in this regard.
Sammy Wilson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Northern Ireland is regarded as a place that has to be treated differently. As I said earlier, the irony is that there have not been any live exports from GB to outside GB since 2020. The Bill leaves out the part of the United Kingdom where animal welfare concerns should be highest, because, at present, we are the area of the United Kingdom that exports animals. We export animals to the south of France, the south of Spain and all over the place, with those journeys taking days.
Before the Government congratulate themselves, they should address the main problem that, because of EU diktat, this Bill cannot apply to the part of the United Kingdom from which animal exports primarily occur—the part of the United Kingdom to which I belong. So much for taking back control. I hope the Government will address this problem.
Unless the application of EU law to Northern Ireland is addressed, we will see more examples of divergence. In fact, when we consider the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill tomorrow, we will find that this immigration legislation cannot apply to Northern Ireland, leaving Northern Ireland as a back door. There is a big problem that needs to be addressed, and it cannot be ignored. The people of Northern Ireland, those who are Unionists, cannot be ignored.
More importantly, where the Government set objectives, as they have for animal welfare in this Bill, those objectives can be thwarted by the constitutional arrangements that have been put in place between this Government, the European Union and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
19:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 53 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That Maria Eagle be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament under Schedule 1 to the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Dame Angela Eagle be appointed to that Committee under section 1 of that Act.
I thank the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her services to the Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I just wish to put on the record the Committee’s appreciation of the hard work of the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on the Intelligence and Security Committee. She served for a period of almost two years. She made major contributions to our annual reports published in December 2022 and December 2023 and in our major subject reports on China, published in July 2023, and on international partnerships in December 2023. Her contribution will also have an effect on our future reports on Iran and cloud technology due to be published before the end of the Parliament. Her legal training also made a valuable contribution to our examination of key legislation of relevance to the Committee, on which we were advised to tender advice.
Finally, even in the right hon. Lady’s departure, by her being replaced by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), we find that we have a minimum of typesetting alterations to undertake given that they share the same surname. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and we are grateful to her replacement for stepping into the void. Our loss is the Labour party’s Defence Front Bench team’s gain.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Public Services in Cornwall: Funding
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to bring this debate to the House this evening. It is a particular joy that it has come so early, because it means that I have two hours to talk about my favourite subject—Cornwall. The whole House will be aware that I view Cornwall as a very, very special place—a unique place in many ways. I always count it as an incredible privilege that I was born and raised there, have lived and worked there my whole life, have raised my family there, and now have the joy of seeing my grandchildren grow up there as well.
Clearly, I am not the only one who views Cornwall as a very special and wonderful place. We have seen significant numbers of people choosing to move to Cornwall in recent years, and, of course, around 5 million people every year come on holiday. It is very easy to have that image of Cornwall as a wonderful place to go on holiday—we all have picture postcard images—without understanding that, behind many of those images, individuals, households and indeed businesses face a number of very real challenges.
We are a relatively low-income economy, with higher than average house prices and a number of other factors that make life challenging for many people. It is not just households and businesses that face challenges in Cornwall, but those who seek to deliver our public services as well. I think that we would all agree in this place that funding for public services should be based on two factors: the need or the demand for that service; and the cost of delivering that service locally. I hope to present to the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in his place, some of the issues that are unique to Cornwall. I particularly want to mention the combination of factors that mean that we face of number of very real challenges when it comes to delivering public services in Cornwall. There is a need, I believe, to review and reflect on those challenges when it comes to the allocation of funding for our services in Cornwall.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this important debate. As a fellow south-west MP, I know that what he is referring to is also reflected in Somerset. Somerset Council is struggling to revive discretionary public services, which it wishes to do because of the current unfair funding method. In the last financial year, rural councils could budget only £77 per head on discretionary services, while urban areas spent more than double that. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done to provide our rural constituents with the services they deserve?
Steve Double
I wonder whether the hon. Lady actually read the subject of the debate, which is specifically about funding and delivering public services in Cornwall. She can make her points in her own debate about her part of the world; I am here to talk about Cornwall this evening.
There is a need to reflect on these challenges and this combination of factors that we face in Cornwall when it comes to the funding that we receive for our public services. My first point is about geography. Cornwall has a unique geography within the British Isles. We are long and narrow peninsula, unlike any other part of the country. We are almost an island. As I have said in this place before, if the River Tamar was 2.5 miles longer, we would actually be an island, and there is many proud a Cornishman who has talked about taking their shovel and finishing the job to create an island. The challenges we face often have more in common with those of an island than with being a part of the mainland.
Steve Double
I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wishes to intervene and I will happily give way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I trust the hon. Gentleman will adhere to the subject of the debate.
Jim Shannon
I hope you will be impressed, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the significance and interest of my comments, and how much they tie in with what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) has said. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is my Gaelic cousin, which means that his interests are similar to my own. Has he ever considered working with other regions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to help address the matter of public services funding? We have Gaelic cousins in Wales, Scotland and, of course, in Northern Ireland. We are united by culture, history and language, and we have mutual interests. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our Gaelic strength is better within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Nice try, but this is an intervention not a speech.
Steve Double
The hon. Member makes a good point, which I will probably come to later. Cornwall has a great deal in common with what gets called the Celtic fringe of the United Kingdom. To pick up on his point about working together, there is a group of local authorities called Britain’s Leading Edge, which represents areas on the coastal fringe of England that work together, because we recognise that the challenges that coastal areas face have some similarities across the country. Clearly there is a lot in common that we can share.
Having said that, our coastline in Cornwall is unique. We are almost an island. I know that we enjoy a bit of banter with Devon from time to time, but they are our only mainland neighbour, which impacts the delivery of services. Counties in the middle of England are surrounded by other local authorities, police forces, fire services and health services that they can share resources with. If there is a particular challenge in one area, it can draw on services from the surrounding counties to help it with that specific incident. We do not have that in Cornwall. In most of Cornwall, we have to provide our own resilience because there is no one else nearby to come and help. I am not sure that that is always understood by Government. It certainly does not seem to get reflected in the funding allocation.
We have the longest coastline in Cornwall: 422 miles. I have not walked all of it yet, but I have walked a great deal of it over the years. We have literally hundreds of small coastal communities. Nowhere in Cornwall is more than 25 miles from the sea, and the vast majority of people live an awful lot closer to it than that. It is just common sense that when delivering a public service in a coastal community, there is not as big a population to deliver that service to, and there is not as much land for people to live on. More sites are therefore needed. By definition, we need more schools, health facilities, police stations and fire stations because we have a smaller area for the station or facility to service. That means that it costs more to deliver services in a coastal area such as Cornwall. I have tried to make that point throughout my time in this place, but I am not sure that the particular challenge that Cornwall faces in delivering services because of our geography and being a narrow peninsula really gets appreciated. It is certainly not reflected in the funding formula.
We are not just a coastal area but a rural one. Cornwall Council is the second biggest by land mass of any local authority in the country—1,375 square miles—yet we have a relatively small population of just over half a million people. We have no towns with a population of more than 25,000. In fact, nearly half of all people who live in Cornwall live in communities of fewer than 3,000. That rurality and sparsity presents real challenges for delivering services because of the additional travelling that has to take place. Our police and fire engines have to travel further to reach those communities.
School travel is a very big challenge in Cornwall. With such large areas to cover, pupils with special educational needs in particular have to travel much further to get to the facilities that we have. We face a huge challenge in adult social care, partly because of the rurality and being a long, narrow peninsular, and the distance that domiciliary care workers have to travel to reach those who need their services.
About 10 years ago, we thought that we had won a big victory on funding for rural services within local government. After a great deal of pressure and arguing from MPs with rural constituencies, the Government introduced the rural services delivery grant. That was really the first time that the emphasis under the Labour Government—when most of the money went into urban and densely populated areas, because they seemed to think that those were the only places in which deprivation took place—had been corrected, with an acknowledgment that rural areas have particular needs and particular costs in delivering those services.
Unfortunately, although we won the argument in principle, when it came to allocating money, it was dampened down and we did not get as much as we should have. In the past 10 years, we have never fully put that right. I suggest to the Government that we really ought to look at that. With the current proposed local government settlement, I know that many rural authorities will face huge challenges. Cornwall is certainly one of them. One way that we could correct that is by increasing the rural services delivery grant to the level it really should be at, rather than the dampened-down level.
We have also been promised a review of police funding in rural areas, but it has not yet happened. Sadly, during that time the gap for Cornwall has actually become bigger. We were 9p per person below the average; we have now dropped to 10p per person below the average for funding. There is therefore a real need to bring forward the review of police funding and ensure that Cornwall gets the funding that it needs. The two factors of being a coastal community and being a rural community really put pressure on the delivery of our services in Cornwall. That needs to be reflected when it comes to funding.
The other element that I will mention is, again, something that I have talked about numerous times: the impact of tourism on Cornwall. Tourism is really important to the Cornish economy, and we welcome it. Typically, 5 million people a year come to Cornwall on holiday. In the UK, we are second only to London in terms of the number of visitors that we welcome every year. To put the impact of that in perspective, I am privileged to represent the town of Newquay, Cornwall’s premier tourist destination, which has a population of about 24,000. In July and August, we have 200,000 people in any given week in Cornwall, so there is eight times the population when tourists come in the peak season.
The pressure that that puts on our infrastructure and services cannot be overestimated. We particularly feel it in the pressure on the NHS. We often say in Cornwall that we have two winters every year in terms of pressure on the NHS. At this time of year, the NHS is under pressure just about everywhere because of seasonal viruses and the impact that cold weather has on people, so there is great pressure on the NHS in Cornwall at this time of year. Then in the summer, when all the tourists come, our NHS is also under huge pressure because of the sheer numbers of people who are there. While most hospitals and NHS services around the country typically have a bit of respite in the summer because all their residents go on holiday, they all come to Cornwall, so we have to pick up the pressure. I do not think that gets reflected particularly in the funding.
The demand on our ambulance services in the summer is also significant. I acknowledge that a lot of work has been done in recent years through the 111 service and Pharmacy First, which we piloted in Cornwall, to get people to think a bit more smartly about where to go to get NHS treatment and advice, rather than turning up at Treliske or trying to see one of our local GPs. That has certainly helped, but there is no way of avoiding the pressure that the NHS in Cornwall faces every summer because of the tourists. Our police face huge pressures in the summer. Crime goes up, and there are more road traffic accidents and cases of antisocial behaviour, all of which the police need to respond to, but that is not reflected in our funding.
Another area, which I recently talked about in a debate, is the impact of tourism on our housing supply and the number of Airbnbs, which push prices up beyond the reach of many people. That means that we struggle to recruit the people we need for our public services because they cannot afford to buy a house to live there. When we talk to NHS managers in Cornwall in particular, they repeatedly say that housing is one of the biggest reasons why they often struggle to recruit the doctors and nurses they need, because they cannot find anywhere to live. The impact that tourism has on our housing market is equally significant.
The final factor I want to mention is our demographics. Cornwall has a rapidly ageing population. Our number of elderly people is 6% higher than the UK average, and the number of over-70s in Cornwall has gone up by 52% in recent years. Some of that is just because everyone is getting older, but it is also because people see Cornwall as a great place to retire to. Again, I do not blame them—I want to retire in Cornwall; it is a great place to retire—but that number of people of retirement age moving to Cornwall puts huge pressure on our health and social care services.
The inverse of that is that we do not have enough people of working age willing to work in the health and social care sector to provide the services they need, so the impact of our demographics is significant. This financial year, Cornwall Council will spend over £250 million on providing adult social care. That is one third of its revenue budget just on social care, and that will only increase as the years go by. We need that to be reflected in the funding settlements we are provided with.
Each of those factors—our geography, the impact of tourism, and the impact of an ageing population—in and of themselves would present significant challenges to Cornwall. The combined effect of those factors is that public services in Cornwall face a unique set of challenges, and nowhere else in the UK faces them to the degree that we do. I want to make the case that, because of that unique combination of pressures and challenges, we need to look again at the funding that Cornwall receives and make a special case for Cornwall.
The Government have already acknowledged that Cornwall is a special place that requires special treatment. We referred earlier to the fact that the Cornish have been recognised as a national minority and receive protected status as a national minority. In 2014, the Council of Europe recognised the Cornish in that way, and the UK Government have acknowledged that. Actually, the UK Government said that they give the Cornish people the same recognition as the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish within the United Kingdom. That is very welcome, but it does not seem to have any impact on Government policy when it comes to funding. If we are going to say that Cornwall is a special place and that the Cornish are a specially recognised and protected people, that should have an impact on the way that Cornwall receives its funding.
Cornwall was the first county to receive a devolution deal back in 2015. Again, the Government at that time recognised the particular uniqueness of Cornwall. That devolution deal was recently upgraded with a new devolution deal. I am personally disappointed that we did not manage to get a level 3 deal, which would have given Cornwall a great deal more and certainly would have shifted the focus much more on to Cornwall. I am disappointed that we did not secure that, but we have had a new level 2 deal. That, again, is the recognition that the Government have given to Cornwall.
The other way the Government have recognised the challenges that Cornwall faces, particularly with regard to our economy, is through the shared prosperity fund, which replaced the European regional development fund. Cornwall received £137 million—far more than any other part of the UK—through the shared prosperity fund. That shows that the Government recognise the particular challenges we face in Cornwall, especially in growing our economy and upskilling our people, and it has been hugely welcome.
We are in the middle of the current round and projects in my constituency have received significant funding, such as essential infrastructure work at the harbour at Charlestown, one of our historical sites. Newquay has also received funding to support its tourism industry and extend the season, which will really help the economy there. We have found that the shared prosperity scheme is much easier to allocate and to access than the old ERDF programmes, which were hugely bureaucratic and always required matched funding. The shared prosperity fund money that has been provided to Cornwall has been very welcome and is doing a lot of good.
However, I want to raise with the Minister the fact that the current round runs out in 2025. That will come around very quickly, so we need to start the conversation and understand what the process will be for the allocation of the next round of shared prosperity funding. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that, in the allocation of that funding in the next round, the Government will continue to recognise the specific challenges that Cornwall faces and continue to support the Cornish economy as they have done over the last few years.
The unique combination of challenges we face in Cornwall, and the fact that the Government already recognise Cornwall in a number of ways as being special and having particular challenges, now need to be reflected in the way our public services are funded—particularly our health service, education, local government and the police. We need the true cost of delivering those services in Cornwall to be reflected in the amount of money we receive. I hope the Minister has got the message that we have particular challenges in Cornwall and that the Government will reflect on those points, continue the conversations with MPs from Cornwall and look again to ensure that Cornwall gets the funding it needs, so that the people of Cornwall can get the public services they deserve.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate, which is so important to my constituents and people across Cornwall. I do not want to speak for long, but I want to add a bit of localised meat to the bones. I must also disagree with my hon. Friend on one point. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and I were at a presentation on Friday on the value of seafood to the Cornish economy, where one of the points made was that an economist had looked at the furthest point from the sea, with particular precision, and had found that nobody in Cornwall is further than 12 miles away from the sea. It is even more coastal than we originally thought—[Interruption.] Yes, on a high tide.
I want to add a little meat to the bones of what my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said. He set out the position on NHS funding very well. Treliske Hospital, the main hospital in my Truro constituency, is the hub for all acute needs for Cornwall. Something the NHS is doing particularly well is to try to spread those services out across the county so that we do not have to have everything happening in Truro.
However, there are particular challenges in places in my constituency, such as Holywell bay on the north coast, or the Roseland peninsula on the south coast. If people on the Roseland peninsula need an ambulance, it has to go across on a ferry before it can get to them. That is how remote it is. Even though it is very close as the bird flies to Falmouth or Truro, the logistics of getting emergency services there are a real challenge for people who live on the peninsula.
I want to make one final point, on special educational needs funding. Based on provisional funding data for 2024-25, Cornwall will receive annual needs funding per child of £724.14. That ranks us 142nd among local authorities. Our statistical neighbours—local authorities with similar characteristics—are due to receive an average of £78.49 per child per year more than Cornwall. In comparison, parents in London boroughs such as Camden, Lewisham, Islington or Westminster can expect their high-needs child to receive something in the region of £2,500 to £3,000.
If Cornwall were to receive the median of everyone else’s funding, it would be worth approximately another £5.4 million to the Cornish local authority, which would therefore be able to provide a much better service for our children. Primarily, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that is down to two things. The first is school transport, because it is very tricky to get a child from those remote places I just mentioned to the school they need to get to, and the second is being able to attract relevant teachers, given the housing challenges that we have talked about in this debate.
I will leave it there for colleagues to reflect on. I join my hon. Friend in his pleas to the Treasury, which he articulated so well, that Cornwall is a special case. We do not like being called a special case for the wrong reasons, but when we have water on three sides—almost four sides—the challenges are real. We have a very competent Conservative-run council in Cornwall, and if it is finding them to be challenges, then we can guarantee that they are very real indeed.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to include in this discussion the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which faces exactly the same kind of challenges. I am in the unique position, among my Cornish colleagues, in that I have two unitary authorities seeking to deliver services to my constituents. I will not speak for too long.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing the debate. He was right to mention the shared prosperity fund and other funds that recognise the particular challenges that Cornwall faces, but those funds do not pay to deliver rural services, so although it is good and absolutely right that we have that money, we must also consider the money that councils get to deliver services.
My hon. Friend talked about the sheer cost of delivering adult social care. In an area where low incomes are often the norm, people do not have huge amounts of money, and they certainly do not have money sitting in the bank, so when they get to an age when they need social care, it is right that the council steps in. For an older population with a lot of deprivation, it is obvious that the council will have to step in, perhaps in more ways than elsewhere.
Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly have been underfunded for years. We know that urbans councils will receive 37% more in Government-funded spending power per head compared with Cornwall Council. As a result of years of underfunding, rural councils such as those of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have had to increase council tax to balance the books, resulting in rural residents now paying on average 20% more than people in urban areas. That is particularly challenging for an area where, as I said, our wages are about a third less than the UK average.
As my hon. Friend said, Cornwall Council services cost more to deliver because of our rurality and coastal stretch. I agree with everything that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) said. The Government have not applied the fair funding formula, and that is the crux of what we are talking about here. As we have heard, in 2016, the Government accepted the challenge, accepted that it costs more to deliver rural services, and accepted that fair funding should be delivered across all local authorities, but they have not applied that in full because of damping and concerns about taking money from urban areas, so will the Minister encourage the Minister with responsibility for local government, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), to use the rural service delivery grant to make up the shortfall?
After not delivering the fair funding formula, the Government introduced the rural service delivery grant to address the short-changing that Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and others have faced. If the Minister takes away one thing from the debate and the brilliant points that have been made, it should be to use the rural service delivery grant to address the shortfall until we can deliver the fair funding formula in full. I say that because predominantly urban constituencies will receive £312 per head from central Government, while Cornwall receives £244 per head. That is a real difference for everyone living in Cornwall and seeking to raise a family and make the most of their lives in Cornwall and on Scilly.
As I have said, in 2016, the Government accepted the challenge and recognised that it costs more to deliver rural services. However, as they have not applied the fair funding formula in full, Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly have been underfunded for years. In reality, Cornwall Council now has £77 less per head than an urban authority to deliver services that are vital for every person in our constituencies. Will the Minister take all that has been said back to the Treasury, as well as to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and deliver what is only fair for the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly? That is all we are asking.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing the debate. He is undoubtedly a strong advocate for his corner of the country and for his constituents. I can think of few greater champions for Cornwall, or for the funding of public services there, than him and my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). I very much value my hon. Friends’ contributions, knowledge, and insights on the local issues they have outlined tonight, and I will do my best to address some of their specific concerns.
Dealing first with local government finance, I certainly recognise that inflation is higher than when budgets were set at the last spending review in 2021. This is true on a global scale, and it presents challenges throughout the world and, of course, throughout our constituencies and communities. Reliable, high-quality public services always matter, but they mean even more to us in challenging times such as these, and in dispersed populations and rural and coastal areas where one’s nearest neighbour might be half a mile away, they can be a real lifeline. The Government are working to ensure that those services are well funded: the provisional 2024-25 local government finance settlement makes up to £64.1 billion available to local governments, an increase of up to almost £4 billion in core spending power on last year. In Cornwall, that has resulted in an almost 7% increase in core spending power. My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for St Ives have pointed to the rural services delivery grant, which is now £95 million, the highest it has ever been. That fund is distributed to the top quartile of authorities, ranked by super-sparsity, but I take my hon. Friends’ point about its scale, and I will be very happy to take that away to my colleagues at DLUHC.
Our coastal communities are vital to the UK’s economic and environmental wellbeing, as well as being home to hundreds of thousands of people, but as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay has pointed out, they face particular challenges. That is why we have supported so many places along our coast, from the beaches of Cornwall to the bays of Stornoway. Eleven of the 12 freeports across the UK are based in coastal areas, with each receiving up to £26 million in Government funding over the next few years, as well as potentially hundreds of millions of pounds in locally retained business rates to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration across coastal communities.
My hon. Friends have mentioned the UK shared prosperity fund. I recognise and commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for his advocacy for that fund, which has supported many of our coastal communities and provides—as he says— a significant £132 million to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, reflecting their share of previous European structural funds. Local leaders are already using that money to deliver ambitious plans for what they call good growth, while the Government have allocated almost £100 million to the towns fund and the future high streets fund to support Cornwall Council’s ambitions to encourage more economic regeneration and strengthen pride in place. I know that my hon. Friend would like more certainty on the future of the UK shared prosperity fund, which he has asked for tonight. While I hope he can understand that I cannot give him that certainty right now, I recognise his council’s enthusiasm to build on the strong start it has made, and I know he will continue to be a very strong advocate on behalf of his council in this place.
Recognising the importance of transportation in rural areas such as Cornwall to help boost productivity, we have also committed some £32.5 million to local highways maintenance and funding potholes. We went further in the spring Budget last year, with an extra £5 million for that endeavour. Through Network North, further funding totalling £3.6 million has been committed to Cornwall in both 2023 and 2024, with later allocations still to be determined. It is not just Cornwall’s roads that we are funding: last year, we awarded Cornwall Council £50 million from the levelling-up fund for the Mid Cornwall Metro. That transport project will provide new hourly direct train services to improve the current links between four of Cornwall’s largest urban areas, so as well as enjoying some of the best views one can get from a train anywhere in the country, residents will be better connected to employment, education and key services. Local leaders have pushed for that metro service, and this Government are very happy to support it, because we are committed to giving more power to local leaders—who, after all, know the needs of their areas almost as well as the local MPs do.
To that end, the recent level 2 devolution deal for Cornwall, announced at the autumn statement of 2023, provides Cornwall with new funding and powers to support local services. This will help Cornwall to maintain the skills that local people need and help bring clean energy to the region’s shores. There were initially discussions, as my hon. Friend pointed out, about a level 3 deal, which would have seen a directly elected Mayor introduced with further powers and an investment fund. However, as he pointed out, Cornwall Council decided that a level 2 deal was preferable at this point in time, and I of course completely respect that decision. After all, it is up to local people to decide and for us to support them, and that is what we have done on this deal and on other local matters of importance.
My hon. Friend mentioned policing. Because of decisions taken by this central and local government, funding for the policing system will rise nationally by some £842 million in 2024-25, distributed according to population sparsity. Devon and Cornwall police will receive up to £230 million in core settlement grants, but I appreciate what he said about the police funding formula. He will know that a review commenced in 2021, which is continuing to carry out engagement. He may wish it to speed up, and I know he will make representations to my colleagues at the Home Office accordingly.
My hon. Friend was completely right to point out the great many people who in recent times have wanted not just to visit Cornwall but to set up a home and raise a family there. Demand for housing is therefore increasing from permanent and part-time residents who want to buy. However, a lack of affordable housing is causing acute concern—house prices are high relative to incomes when compared nationally—and we understand that. The temporary and emergency accommodation budget has also become increasingly strained in recent years. To address that concern, the Government are committed to building more affordable homes. As recommended at the 2021 spending review, we are investing £11.5 billion between 2021 and 2026 through the affordable homes programme, which is the largest cash investment we have seen in a decade. I also note that Cornwall Council has been supportive of Government plans to enable local authorities to increase the council tax premium on second homes by up to 100%. It is believed that this could provide £20 million of additional revenue. There is always more to do of course, so it is critical that we continue to have open conversations as we are doing tonight.
Finally, let me address the comments on SEND from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. Nationally, the Government are committed, and have committed, to addressing this. At the last spending review, we committed £2.6 billion to create 30,000 new school places for young people with SEND. It is our hope that this will lead to fewer people having to be transported long distances, as she described, to access the right educational settings. Again, there is more to do, and I know that the Department for Education, which leads on this policy area, is progressing more wholesale reforms of the SEND system. I would be happy to have the relevant Minister from the Department for Education write to her on Cornwall specifically.
I have spoken at length about what we are doing for Cornwall, but let me finish by recognising Cornwall’s contribution to our country. I would not be the first MP from Grantham to recognise its virtues. Were I to walk on the sandy shores of Constantine bay, I would be following in the very large footsteps of a certain greengrocer’s daughter, although I am reliably informed that Watergate bay in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay is also worth a visit. Cornwall is not just home to incredible natural beauty, delicious pasties, irresistible ice cream and thrilling surfing. More importantly, it is home to some of the finest people our country has ever known. While I have listed the many facts and figures set out by this Government, we should never forget that behind them are thousands of wonderful Cornish people. They could not be better represented than by my hon. Friend, whom I look forward to continuing to work with long into the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023
Draft Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.
Tom Pursglove
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. May I welcome you to the Chair and welcome members of the Committee to this debate?
I turn first to the draft Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023. The Home Office is the first line of enforcement against illegal migration and works across Government to prevent individuals without lawful status in the UK from accessing work, benefits and services. Illegal working often results in abusive and exploitative behaviour, the mistreatment of unlawful migrant workers, and revenue evasion. It can undercut legitimate businesses and have an adverse impact on the employment opportunities of people who are lawfully in the UK.
Employers have a role to play in ensuring that all their employees have the right to work in the UK. Since 2008, this has been underpinned by the right-to-work civil penalty scheme, under which employers are required to carry out prescribed checks on individuals before employing them, to ensure that they are lawfully allowed to work in the UK. If an employer employs someone who does not have the right to work in the UK, that employer may be liable for a civil penalty. Employers can avoid liability for a civil penalty if the correct right-to-work checks are carried out before the individual commences employment.
The level of civil penalty for non-compliance has remained the same since 2014, diluting its impact as a deterrent to those who seek to allow illegal working and labour exploitation to take place. Accordingly, the Government intend to increase from £20,000 to £60,000 the civil penalty for employers, by virtue of the draft Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023. This will ensure that the scheme continues to act as a deterrent to employers who employ illegal migrants, and will send a clear message that only individuals with the right to work in the UK can secure employment.
In the case of a first breach, the starting point is £45,000. Employers who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a further 30% reduction in the overall amount after reductions have been applied for any specific mitigating factors. It remains a criminal offence for migrants to work illegally in the UK, or where the individual is in the UK unlawfully. The offence of working illegally carries a maximum penalty of 51 weeks’ imprisonment in England and Wales, or six months’ imprisonment in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or a fine.
The draft Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023 will be in force in England only. Since 2014, anyone who offers rental accommodation in the private rented sector has had to carry out checks on new adult occupiers before renting to them. This is to check that the individual has the right to rent. These checks are commonly known as the right-to-rent scheme.
Allowing those without a lawful right to be in the UK to rent property enables them to establish a settled life in spite of being here unlawfully. This creates a cost to the public purse, including through the provision of local authority support, and reduces the amount of housing stock available to those who lawfully reside in the UK. The practice can result in abusive and exploitative behaviour, with rogue landlords housing unlawful migrants in what is often unsafe accommodation. The maximum civil penalty for landlords, including letting agents, will be raised from £3,000 to £20,000, by virtue of the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023. In the case of a first breach, the starting point is £10,000.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us how many times the employer and landlord fines have been imposed, and what that money is used for?
Tom Pursglove
If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is worth saying that the figure we are proposing is £45,000 per worker for a first breach and £60,000 for a repeat breach; that is the position we are taking. To give the hon. Gentleman some context as to the number of illegal working penalties issued, I am happy to write to him with a chart that sets out in a granular way, month by month, the number and the value of penalties issued.
I can give the Committee some illustrative examples. In November 2023, 123 illegal working penalties were issued, with a value of over £3 million—a considerable number, and important in context. In the same month, 40 illegal renting penalties were issued, with a value of £38,320. From January 2023 to November 2023, 140 right-to-rent civil penalties were issued, an increase of over 380% on the same period in 2022. Between January 2023 and November 2023, the value of right-to-rent civil penalties issued was over £136,000, an increase of over 495% on the same period in 2022.
Neil Coyle
I can see why the Government want to use employers and landlords to try to help the failing, chaotic Home Office, but the second part of my question was about what those funds are being used for, because they do not seem to be supporting the Home Office in delivering its core function.
Tom Pursglove
I am covering this statutory instrument today for the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), but I will gladly come back to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark with a substantive answer to his specific point about the funds and the way in which they are deployed. I have been able to set out quite comprehensively, I think, the nature of the funds that are being collected for both these important schemes. If I may, in my wind-up speech I will pick up that point directly.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I was unaware that he was covering for his colleague, but of course it takes multiple Government Ministers to cover one excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon.
In how many instances has the Home Office been notified of an employer illegally using someone who is unlawfully working in the UK, and then failed to take action? I have at least two constituency cases involving people who are working in this country who should not be in the country, because they have committed very serious criminal offences and should have been removed. One of them was in prison until 2016, and the Home Office has failed to issue the deportation order.
Tom Pursglove
I suppose I might say that it is very easy for a party to have one shadow Minister when it has a very limited policy platform to advance on the substance of the migration and borders portfolio.
On the Home Office’s ability to collect the fines, we have robust debt recovery strategies in place to maximise the opportunities to collect outstanding debt. This is difficult debt to collect, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The organisations that we are dealing with are often determined to act in a non-compliant way. That is the nature of the activity to which we are responding through these schemes.
Of the £355 million raised throughout the life of the scheme, approximately 56% of debt has been recovered or discounted for compliance and faster payment. More recently, between January 2023 and November 2023, more than 1,400 right-to-work civil penalties were issued, to a value of over £26 million. Within the same period, 140 right-to-rent civil penalties were issued, to a value of over £136,000. I know that the Department continues to strive to improve collection rates wherever possible; it is a real area of focus.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Can the Minister help me with one question? I am trying to work out what the increase in the penalties is trying to achieve. Is the problem that people do not know that the penalties exist and therefore end up breaking the law unwittingly, or is it that they know the law but think, “Actually, I can make loads of money out of this, so it’s worth the risk of a penalty because I probably won’t get detected”? Is it the purpose of increasing the penalty to break that economic equation?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The rationale for the level of the penalty is to focus on deterring people from going about these practices, which are very harmful in many respects and which have the adverse consequences that I have mentioned. The Government believe that employers, landlords or letting agents that employ or let to individuals without status should face much higher penalties as a matter of principle. Also, the value of the penalties has not been revised recently, so we think the time is right to have another look at them and revise the levels to those that I have set out. The higher expected cost of non-compliance aims to reduce the number of landlords, letting agents and employers who engage in this activity, with the ultimate aim of driving changes in behaviour and reducing the incidence of non-compliant letting and employment, which will deter individuals from remaining in the country without status, deter illegal migration, and deter all the root causes.
To finish the point that I was making before I began taking interventions, landlords and lettings agents who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a 30% reduction from £10,000 to £7,000 or from £5,000 to £3,500 as applicable. As is the case now, the maximum penalty will be levied only on an employer, landlord or letting agent that has breached one of the schemes on more than one occasion in a three-year period, where the fast payment option was not used and where no specified mitigating factors apply.
Across both schemes, employers, landlords and letting agents can appeal a civil penalty decision if, following an objection to the Home Office, that decision has been upheld. An appeal must be on the same grounds as the objection, and an employer, landlord or letting agent must appeal within 28 days, registering the appeal at a county court or sheriff court. That provides accidentally non-compliant employers, landlords or letting agents with safeguards against penalties.
In summary, the draft orders aim to change the behaviour of rogue employers, landlords and letting agents; to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance; to deter those contemplating entering the UK illegally; to tackle, where appropriate, the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance; and to deter future non-compliance. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I will first respond to the Minister’s comments on the illegal working penalties and then address the draft order that relates to rental accommodation.
Labour supports the principle of prohibiting those with no legal right to be in the UK from undertaking paid employment here. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who in 2006 enacted legislation that first established civil penalties for employers who fail to comply with those restrictions. For the restrictions to have teeth, civil penalties must be set at a level that is onerous enough to deter employers from knowingly and deliberately breaking the law.
With that goal in mind, it is right that the maximum fines for employers should be kept under review and, where necessary, increased. However, I am sure that the Government do not want to impose burdensome regulations on small businesses just for the sake of it. That can be avoided easily enough, provided that the Government consult with employers on the potential impact of any changes and take action to mitigate any undue burdens or unintended consequences for the businesses affected.
Not for the first time, the Home Office has fallen short of what might reasonably have been expected of it. The only reference in the explanatory memorandum to any consultation with employers is in a terse paragraph that confirms that none has taken place. Given the magnitude of the proposed changes—a tripling of penalties from £15,000 to £45,000 per worker for first offences—the failure to consult is surprising and disappointing. The party that the Minister represents claims to be pro-business, yet it appears not to have consulted with business on this important change. If the Minister can provide an explanation for the lack of consultation with business, I am sure hon. Members will be happy to hear it.
More broadly, the draft order represents a missed opportunity on the Government’s part to set out a clear, comprehensive and effective strategy for combating illegal working across the board, including through the use of the civil penalty scheme. The failure of Ministers to do so is all the more disappointing in view of the fact that a review was promised by the Home Office following a recommendation from the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration back in 2019. It appears to have gone the way of most recommendations that are “accepted” by the Department, which is to say put in a drawer and forgotten about. Perhaps my cynicism is unjustified, in which case the Minister is more than welcome to correct me and tell me exactly when the fabled strategy on illegal working will be published.
As with the other statutory instrument that we will be discussing, there is a risk of these higher fines feeling like another case of the Government running out of ideas and just making things that are already illegal a bit more illegal.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling this problem would be an awful lot easier if the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP had not ganged up to defeat our plans for identity cards when we were in government? Every other European Union country has them; there is absolutely no reason at all why we should not. That is why the Government are facing these humongous problems.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. The debate around identity cards has been raging, one could say, for a very long time. It is something that needs to be looked at very seriously, but as he knows, the whole project was kiboshed at the time. It is certainly something that merits further discussion.
I turn to the right-to-rent checks and the civil penalties for non-compliance. These are a means of supporting the objective of tackling and deterring illegal migration. On that basis, the argument goes, the higher the penalties imposed on landlords for letting to migrants who are in the UK illegally, the stronger the deterrent against further unlawful migration. Given how emphatically the Government draw a direct link between these higher penalties and tackling illegal migration, hon. Members might have expected Ministers to put forward stronger evidence to support the policy and to support that link, yet they have not done so. Again, it feels rather as if the Government are running out of ideas and resorting to making illegal things more illegal.
It feels fairly unlikely that channel crossings would be deterred if only immigrants could see that it would be hard to rent a home on arrival in the UK. If there is genuine evidence to support the effectiveness of these penalties in deterring irregular migration, I am sure hon. Members would be very grateful if the Minister pointed it out.
For the sake of argument, let us say that penalties on landlords do serve as a deterrent. The question the Government then have to answer is whether there could be any unintended consequences of the proposed increase. If so, what steps would be taken to mitigate any harm to those who are here perfectly legally?
I do not think the Minister mentioned this in his comments—my apologies if he did; I may have missed it—but I am sure he is aware that there is evidence that lawful residents, including British nationals, have faced significant barriers to securing accommodation as a result of landlords’ fears of being penalised for even unintended breaches of the right-to-rent requirement. Evidence published by the Minister’s own Department shows that; as early as 2014, when the scheme was first piloted, research showed that landlords, out of an abundance of caution, reacted to the new rules by favouring would-be tenants who were white and who could produce a UK passport on request—and even, in 27% of cases, those who did not have “foreign-sounding” accents or names.
As was all too common with the old hostile environment policies, at least as much of a burden seems to be being placed on lawful migrants and British-born citizens as on the unlawful migrants the policy is supposed to target. The problem is not that the Home Office was not aware of this evidence; the problem is that it simply dismissed it. In doing so, Ministers said that clear guidance to landlords was available in the case of any doubt as to what they are or are not required to do. In the Minister’s view, is the guidance sufficiently clear? More importantly, has the guidance been made known to landlords so that any risk of unintended discriminatory consequences is minimised as far as is practically possible?
To be clear, the Opposition are not saying that the right-to-rent system is inherently unworkable or unacceptable, but it is incumbent on Ministers to set out what specific steps the Government will take both to mitigate any adverse effects on lawful migrants and citizens and to ensure that any evidence of discrimination that is brought to Ministers’ attention is swiftly acted on with appropriate remedies and safeguards. I look forward to hearing a clear commitment to that effect from the Minister.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It is nice to see the Minister in his place, substituting as he is for the other Minister. We have the Minister for Legal Migration and the Minister for Illegal Migration, the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the topsy-turvy world of the Home Office—I always forget which one is which, but it is nice to see this Minister here today.
I am a little confused by the provisions relating to the residential accommodation maximum penalty order. The statutory instrument states:
“This Order extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”,
whereas the explanatory memorandum is clear that
“the Right to Rent Scheme is not in force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
If the Minister explained why the territorial extent is being extended in a statutory instrument, that would be quite welcome. Is it a further overstretch by this Parliament into the legislative competence of the devolved Governments? I would not be surprised.
Paragraph 6.7 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“However, this Order will only produce a practical effect in England, until the remaining provisions giving the Scheme operative effect are fully brought into force in respect of premises located in other areas of the UK.”
I am not aware of it being the intention of any of the devolved Governments to bring this into force, so I am not sure why this is in the explanatory memorandum and what the Minister is intending to happen here. If it is his intention for that to happen, that is quite a worry. I want his reassurance that such a scheme, which has been proven to be discriminatory and to have a chilling effect on the ability of non-UK nationals and UK nationals who do not have a passport—perhaps they cannot afford a passport—to rent accommodation in England, will not be extended to the rest of the UK against our will.
I am also concerned by the scale of the increases in penalty notices; these are really significant increases and I have not heard terribly much from the Minister to justify that. He has talked about the amount that his Government cannot and do not even collect at the moment; they are not doing a competent job of collecting those fines, so it seems ridiculous that they have been given the chance to collect yet more money from people when they are not collecting what they should at the moment.
I also want to speak to the second statutory instrument. In the Minister’s world, it seems to be very simple: people are either legal or not legal, able to work or not able to work. But he may be interested in the case of a gentleman who came to see me at my surgery just last Friday. That gentleman has been here for 10 years and he has always had the right to work, but when he went to check his digital status on the Home Office website when his biometric residence permit was renewed nine months ago, he was told that he did not have the right to work any more. Since finding out that suddenly he did not have the right to work any more, he has been trying to get this fixed: he has a family to feed and rent to pay; and he is indebted to his friends now as well, because he has been trying to gather the money to do these things and to keep going.
This gentleman has been to a lawyer, the lawyer has been to the Home Office, and they are going round and round in circles. He has been told that it is some kind of technical glitch in the system. Well, that is not good enough. This man has the right to work—he has all the paperwork as far as anybody can figure—but the Home Office is saying that there is a technical glitch. If he were to work, he would be caught by this order and his employer would be fined. If he was renting in England, he would also be caught by it, because he cannot prove that he has the right to work due to the Home Office’s incompetence and their system’s technical glitch. I would be happy to pass on this gentleman’s details, because he is not illegal, so his case does not fall to the other Minister. He is not in the UK illegally, and he should be getting on with his life and beginning to work. He should be providing for his family, as he wants to, but the Home Office’s system says no.
Will the Minister tell us whether people who end up in circumstances such as those of my constituent will lose their jobs, homes and everything else because the Home Office’s computer says no? Given the digital checks, the system is supposed to work better than that, but it has not done so in the case of my constituent. He has been trying his best—waiting and emailing constantly—but he is getting absolutely nowhere. How many other people in England might end up in similar circumstances, only to find that they lose their homes? I am glad that in Scotland this gentleman would not face losing his home in these circumstances.
I have worked with employers in the past. As the Home Office’s systems have not properly notified them that a visa is expiring—or that they need to renew their licence because the paperwork has gone to another address or somewhere the person did not expect, there has been a change of personnel or the wrong email address has been used—people have inadvertently ended up on the wrong side of the Home Office’s rules. They can be fined up to £60,000, which could finish some businesses all together. We know from the many cases of things that the Home Office has got wrong over the years—from the TOEIC scandal to the highly skilled migrants scandal and the Windrush scandal—that so many people have ended up on the wrong end of the Home Office’s rules and not even received an apology, never mind recompense for the loss of earnings. In many cases, they have felt outright embarrassment within their community about ending up on the wrong side of those rules.
Will the Minister tell us what leeway people have to appeal when they have inadvertently ended up breaching the orders through some administrative error? It goes from being quite a significant fine for that error to being an absolutely devastating fine for the person, the business and everybody involved. I know the Home Office will exercise a degree of discretion should something like this occur, but I have not found it to be a particularly forgiving Department when such things happen. After all, it is the Department of “deport first and ask questions later”.
I will conclude my remarks there. I will vote against the draft orders, because I believe that they are far too heavy a burden on individuals and businesses. The Minister has not justified the increase that he is providing today, and I seek reassurances on the issues I have raised.
Nigel Mills
I have a few questions for the Minister. I can remember serving on the Public Bill Committee on the Immigration Act a decade ago, and supporting these measures when they were introduced. I think the logic at the time was that it is almost impossible to stop people getting here, given that we have a relatively open border. If they arrive on a holiday visa and stay illegally, there is no way we can stop them. We need to make it as difficult as we can for them to stay here illegally.
What we do not really have is any evidence that the measures have actually worked to reduce the problem. An estimate I found suggested that 600,000 to 700,000 people are working illegally in the UK. Can the Minister tell us whether that number has gone up or down in the last decade? I sense that it has probably gone up, which might suggest that the plan is not working as well as it should. Perhaps increasing the penalty is the way to make the plan work.
What also concerns me is the amount of enforcement action we are taking. The Government now publish data on this issue quarterly, and I think it took until the last quarter of last year to get back to the pre-covid level of inspections. The number of penalties is tiny. In 2022-23, 1,105 penalties were issued to employers in relation to the 600,000 or 700,000 people who we think are working illegally, and only 45 to letting agents. It is a hell of a lot of work for 45 penalty notices a year, so what plans do the Government have to increase the number of inspections and the number of penalties being issued to help tackle this type of behaviour? Do the Government have any targets or expectations for what the reduced number of people being employed illegally or letting illegally will be in, say, three or five years’ time, so that we can judge whether the measures are working or whether we need a different strategy?
Tom Pursglove
May I express my gratitude to colleagues from across the House for the scrutiny and insight that this debate has brought to bear on the undoubtedly important subject of the fees and fines in established schemes?
Before I address some of the issues raised and questions asked, I want to make the general point that we can deliver a comprehensive response to tackle illegal migration only if we work with UK employers, landlords and letting agents to deny employment and housing to those without the right to work or rent in this country. Illegal working and renting are the main incentives for illegal migration and often involve exploitation and unfair competition.
The civil penalty scheme encourages employers, landlords and letting agents to comply with their obligations to check the right to work and rent of all employees and occupiers, without criminalising those who make a mistake. Legitimate employers, landlords or letting agents will not face higher costs through increased penalties. The scope of the penalty regime has not changed. Those that continue to act in a legitimate manner, by checking and recording the documents of their employees or tenants, will not be affected by the strengthened penalty regime.
I will now touch on several points raised during the course of the debate. First, I would be keen to see the details of the specific case raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central; if she shares them with me, I will look at the case with the utmost urgency to help vulnerable users of the online checking system. The Home Office is developing its digital products and services for use by all, including vulnerable users. Users can contact the UK Visas and Immigration resolution centre, which provides telephone and email support to those using online immigration status services and supports all individuals interacting with online services.
The services include a priority response helpline specifically for employers, landlords and letting agents who need help accessing or using the online immigration status services. To ensure that service demand is responsive to need, there are separate lines for EU settlement scheme applicants and for non-EUSS status-related queries. All callers speak to a trained agent who works to resolve their specific query. Again, if the hon. Lady shares the details with me, I will be happy to look at the specifics of the case.
Neil Coyle
In answer to an earlier question, the Minister did not say what the funds raised from the penalties actually pay for. Are the funds supposed to pay for this service? They are clearly not paying for crimes to be prevented or solved, given that nine out of 10 are unsolved, and they are clearly not cutting the asylum backlog. Where is the money raised through the fines going?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman sort of pre-empts what I was going to say in my remarks; I was just trying to deal with each contribution in turn to ensure that the points are dealt with thoroughly. However, I can tell him that the Home Office is allowed to keep £19 million of the civil penalty regime income, and that is put into the consolidated fund, underpinned through the Immigration Act 2014.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central rightly also asked about some of the safeguards around debt recovery and appeals against the civil penalties. People can appeal a civil penalty decision if, following an objection to the Home Office, that decision has been upheld. An appeal must be made on the same grounds as the objection, and the employer, landlord or letting agent must do so within 28 days, registering the appeal at a county court or sheriff court. The three grounds are as follows: the person is not liable to pay the penalty, which could mean they are not the employer, landlord or letting agent of the illegal migrant identified; they have a statutory excuse, which means they carried out checks as required; and the level of the penalty is too high. She specifically asked whether there is sensible discretion within the system, and the answer is yes: officials have discretion in order to deal with such matters appropriately.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister says that somebody has 28 days to appeal, which is quite a short period of time. How long does the Home Office take to conclude these cases?
Tom Pursglove
My understanding is that we try to deal with the matter as quickly as possible following an appeal being lodged and that we work to a similar 28-day timescale.
I understand why the hon. Lady asked about the devolved Administrations. They were not consulted on these measures, which are reserved policies, but the Government wrote to them to advise on the increase to the civil penalties when the draft orders were laid in November 2023. On whether the civil penalty increase applies across the UK, the right-to-work scheme has UK-wide application, as the hon. Lady knows, and the right-to-rent scheme is in force in England only. The longer-term intention is to explore rolling the scheme out to the rest of the UK.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark asked an important question about how we ensure that the penalties are paid. The Home Office works closely with debt recovery providers and other Departments to do as much as we can to ensure that they are. Where a penalty is unpaid, it will be registered with the civil court and enforcement action commenced. Where companies take action to dissolve and be struck off the companies register, we may lodge an objection against the application when a penalty has not been paid. Where an employer remains non-compliant or becomes liquidated or bankrupt, details are shared with the Insolvency Service, which considers action under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Successful action to disqualify an employer as a director can tackle the practice of carrying on the same business successively through a series of companies each of which becomes insolvent. As I mentioned earlier, we look carefully at what more we can do to ensure that the fines are paid as expeditiously as possible.
Let me turn to how the increase was calculated. Civil penalties for non-compliance have remained the same since 2014, despite periods of high inflation, and the approach to the increase in the civil penalties was based on evidence and research on international comparisons and other civil penalty schemes operated in the UK. Where illegal working is identified, the increased penalty level for the right-to-work scheme aligns the UK at the higher range of sanctions applied across international comparators, including France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Australia.
An employer, landlord or letting agent may request permission from the Home Office to pay a civil penalty in instalments over an agreed period, which is usually up to 24 months. In such cases, they should provide the full reasons for their inability to pay the full penalty amount in one payment. I reiterate that the Home Office has discretion to handle such matters sensibly and appropriately, which I think addresses the points raised by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon, had an interesting approach, in that he alluded to things being a little bit illegal or more illegal. The fact is that the activities and behaviours that we are seeing are illegal and unacceptable, and it is right that we have a firm and robust approach to them. We welcome the shadow Minister’s and Opposition Members’ support for the changes to the level of the penalty. The Home Office has delivered an extensive, wide-reaching engagement programme to employers, landlords and lettings agents. Extensive communication strategies, including online guidance, webinars and engagement events, are in place to help ensure that employers, landlords and letting agents understand their obligations.
Between the announcement of the proposals to increase the civil penalties in August 2023 and 20 January, Home Office officials have supported more than 30 engagement events, reaching more than 11,000 stakeholders across the relevant sectors. The Home Office continues to work with members of the Home Office employers consultative group and landlord consultative panel, which cover all major employment and rental sectors. It meets them quarterly to seek their input and to inform our future guidance and communication products in respect of the operation of the right-to-work and right-to-rent schemes. As the shadow Minister will appreciate, the employers that we engage with are those that behave in a compliant manner; the individuals and businesses that we interact with through the penalties often have a very different posture. There was no duty to consult at the outset, but we have had extensive engagement.
A very valid question was asked about discrimination. Of course, all of us in this House and in Government want to ensure that we get this right. The Home Office has published codes of practice for employers, landlords and letting agents on how to avoid unlawful discrimination when undertaking checks. The codes of practice clearly stipulate that employers, landlords and letting agents are advised to provide individuals with every opportunity to demonstrate their right to work or rent. They should not discriminate on the basis of nationality or any of the other protected characteristics. We are clear that those who discriminate are breaking the law.
The evaluation has found that the right-to-rent scheme is not discriminatory, although that does not rule out discriminatory behaviour from individual landlords and letting agents. It is often easier for landlords, letting agents and employers to carry out checks digitally, with no requirement for them to understand the types of documents that renters and employers have. In some cases, it is actually easier to bring a migrant into employment or a residential tenancy agreement than a British citizen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Aberavon raised a point about immigration enforcement. That of course fits within the portfolio of the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, but I can say that we are very much scaling up immigration enforcement work in tandem with the changes. The Home Office immigration enforcement teams are surging the number of enforcement operations being conducted to bring those violating our laws to justice.
Over the first three quarters of 2023, 10,509 enforcement visits took place, of which 4,721 were illegal working enforcement visits, which is a rise of more than 40% compared with the same period in 2022. Between January and November 2023, over 1,400 right-to-work civil penalties were issued, which is an increase of 40% compared with the same period in 2022; the value of right-to-work civil penalties issued was over £26 million, which is over 45% more than in the same period in 2022, and demonstrates that those efforts are being stepped up and are delivering results; 140 right-to-rent civil penalties were issued, which is an increase of over 75% compared with the same period in 2022; and the value of right-to-rent civil penalties issued was over £136,000, which is an increase by over 80% compared with the same period in 2022.
Neil Coyle
One loophole that a letting agent could use is the guarantor system. Does the Minister have any data or information on the number of fines paid by a guarantor as opposed to the letting agent? If the Government are serious about stopping a behaviour, they need to ensure that the business itself is fined rather than passing it on to a guarantor covering for someone who is illegally in the country.
Tom Pursglove
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would like to take that point away. In the earlier part of the debate, I said that I would provide him with a letter that sets out in more granular detail the statistics that he asked for. I was able to give the headline numbers, but it is valuable for the scrutiny of these measures to share with him those more granular month-on-month numbers of fines issued, and the level at which they come in. That is a point that I am very happy to pick up on in my response to him.
Tom Pursglove
On the wider loophole, we will gladly provide as much insight as we can. I will raise the point directly with the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration. The Home Office wants to continue to work closely with business, landlords and letting agents, across Government and with law enforcement partners to promote collaboration on activity aimed at tackling illegal working, ensuring safe and responsible recruitment and onboarding practices while upholding the safeguards that protect legitimate workers and those at risk of exploitation. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, in that spirit we want to directly deal with and address, in the fullest sense, all areas or avenues of abuse that emerge.
Addressing illegal working and renting not only protects the domestic labour and housing market but identifies unscrupulous employers, landlords and letting agents who exploit vulnerable migrants. Equally, it ensures that only those who are in the UK legally, with permission to work and rent, are able to do so. On that basis, I again commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. This instrument corrects very minor errors in the Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which I shall abbreviate to “the 2023 regulations”, relating to how the transitional arrangements for the new rules on proxy voting are displayed on poll cards. That is all that the regulations do.
The Elections Act 2022 made a wide range of changes to numerous aspects of the electoral system, including the rules about the number of people for whom an individual can act as a proxy when voting. The changes were implemented by the 2023 regulations, and supported by new offences, and they came into force on 31 October 2023. The new arrangements limit the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy to four, of which no more than two can be domestic electors—that is, an elector who is not registered as an overseas or service voter. The 2023 regulations also updated all relevant prescribed forms—for example, poll cards—to make sure that the new limits are clearly explained to electors.
To ensure a smooth change of rules, the 2023 regulations set out a transitionary period that would allow proxy arrangements that were set up before the new rules came into force to continue until 31 January 2024, or longer if a poll was under way on that date. That was to avoid a cliff-edge situation in which all proxy arrangements were cancelled simultaneously, which could have created administrative issues and left insufficient time for electors to reapply for new proxy arrangements.
The change in proxy rules needed to be reflected in the information provided on election forms, such as poll cards, and those needed to be updated for polls held both during and after the transitionary period. The 2023 regulations provided the necessary updates for the forms used for any polls for which notice was given prior to 31 January 2024—that is, up until the end of the transitionary period.
The forms for postal poll cards and proxy postal poll cards for any polls held after the transitionary period are set out in a different set of regulations: the Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling and Secrecy) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. However, those forms do not come into force for any polls where the day of the poll is prior to 1 May 2024. Therefore—this is getting to the crux of the matter—there is a gap in the transitional provisions for any polls for which notice is given on or after 31 January 2024 if the day of the poll is on or before 1 May 2024, as no transitional provision has been made. In any polls that took place during that time, the postal poll cards and proxy postal poll cards used before the 2023 regulations came into force would have to be used, which would provide incorrect information about the rules and offences surrounding proxy voting.
The same gap applies to postal signing petition notices and proxy postal signing petition notices for any recall petition for which the Speaker’s notice is given on or after 31 January 2024 and for which the beginning of the petition-signing period is on or before 1 May 2024.
The instrument before us will correct the error in the 2023 regulations by making additional transitional provision to cover the gap. That will ensure that the proxy voting changes are clearly explained to electors and so avoid any confusion. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for her introduction. We all want any legislation introduced to be in proper order, but we understand that errors can be made during drafting, so we do not intend to be too critical of those mistakes. I hope that the Minister can look at the other problems presented by the Elections Act that we have previously discussed bringing forward corrections to. If the Government bring forward such corrections, they will not find an enemy in me.
The Minister outlined the huge task of, and changes made in, the Elections Act. I have sympathy with her on the task of introducing so many complex changes to electoral statute. I would like her to address how the Government expect our already stretched electoral administrators up and down the country to get their head around the changes when the Government themselves are making errors in the implementation.
The Minister outlined the timing. The correction is extremely time sensitive, as it fills a gap that will be left once the provisions in schedule 2 to the unamended regulations begin to expire at the end of this month. Otherwise, old, incorrect information on the number of people for whom a voter can act as proxy would be used in elections after 31 January and before May. Regardless of the merits of any piece of legislation, it is deeply concerning if forms mandated by legislation provide incorrect information on how the public should interpret the law. That is particularly true of electoral law; misinformation could damage the public’s trust in our electoral and democratic process. I therefore welcome the correction from the Government, and will support it, in the expectation that it will be in place before the end of the month. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its work in drawing attention to the error, and ensuring that it is corrected in a timely manner.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. Having once served on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I entirely agree about the incredible amount of work that it does to make sure that the rest of the House and other legislators get this kind of thing right.
A few of us warned, during the Elections Bill, that we were perhaps legislating in haste and would end up repenting at leisure. The Bill was a bit of a wasted opportunity; there was a real need to properly consolidate, update and reform electoral law, and build in a proper timescale for implementing and modernising the regime. Instead, we face a slew of statutory instruments implementing measures and correcting mistakes. That places a huge burden, as the Labour Front Bencher said, on our electoral registration officers, the Electoral Commission and others who are responsible for the safe management of our elections.
It would be useful to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government plan to ensure that returning officers, their teams across the country and the Electoral Commission are properly resourced to implement this change, and all the other changes, with one hand tied behind their back, because no one knows exactly when the election will be. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 was another piece of retrograde legislation introduced by the Government in an attempt to suppress and confuse voters.
Incidentally, the provisions of this statutory instrument are to run until 1 May 2024. If the election is on 2 May, which is a date that has been floated, Parliament will have to dissolve on 26 March, barely two months from now. That is probably sobering enough for most of us here, but it is incredibly sobering for the people who would have to run the election. That uncertainty is a huge problem. By all means let us fix the mistakes that the Government have made; moreover, let us try not to repeat them.
Felicity Buchan
I thank the hon. Members for Vauxhall, and for Glasgow North, for their constructive tone. I echo the comments made about the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and all its work.
There were a few questions, to which I will reply briefly. Officials have been working, and will continue to work, carefully and closely with the sector on planning the implementation. Some £25.5 million has already been provided to local authorities, and further grant funding will be provided in April 2024 to support ongoing delivery, ahead of the May 2024 elections. I restate that we already have a process in place through which local authorities can claim additional new burdens funding retrospectively, if that is required.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North talked about the consolidation of electoral law. The Government remain committed to the continued integrity of our electoral law and processes. That is why our immediate priority is to implement the measures flowing from the Elections Act 2022. It is robust, and we are very much committed to ensuring that the legislation is successfully implemented. The hon. Member for Vauxhall raised concerns about the ability to implement the legislation. As I said, funding is being made available, and we are working closely with the sector to ensure its successful implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Scotland
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont
We are also supporting pensioners by maintaining the triple lock. The basic state pension, new state pension and pension credit standard minimum guarantee will be uprated in April 2024 by 8.5%, in line with the average earnings growth between May and June 2023.
[Official Report, 9 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 65WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont):
An error has been identified in my closing speech. The correct response should have been:
John Lamont
We are also supporting pensioners by maintaining the triple lock. The basic state pension, new state pension and pension credit standard minimum guarantee will be uprated in April 2024 by 8.5%, in line with earnings growth in the year to May-July 2023.
Opposition to parking charges in Audlem, Cheshire
Planning permission for telecommunication telegraph pole installation
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
Foster Carers: Allowances and Tax Arrangements
(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
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 625515 relating to allowances and tax arrangements for foster carers.
This e-petition asks the UK Government to review and increase both the allowances paid to foster carers and foster carers’ tax exemption levels, so that they can reflect the true cost of caring for a child. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I appreciate that we are a little light on numbers attending, because of the seriousness of events in the main Chamber, but I hope that I can do justice to this case.
I am also delighted to be leading this most important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, because the work of foster carers, and the full costs of caring for a child in foster care so that they can thrive—not just survive—have for too long been given neither enough attention nor the deserved recognition. I must admit that this is the kind of profession that I personally would be terrified to even begin to enter into, and my gratitude goes out to the people who take it on.
The issues raised in the petition have several complex aspects that I will come on to, but let us start at the beginning. The petition came about because of the results of the 2022 cost of living survey carried out by FosterTalk, which is
“the Centre of Excellence UK for the Martin James Foundation”
and has for two decades been supporting those who care. The response to the survey was the largest for all surveys launched by FosterTalk to date, and its findings were stark.
The headline figures were that because of financial pressures, 43% of carers may leave fostering in the next two years; 56% of carers had not received an uplift in allowances over the previous six to 12 months; 90% of those who had felt that it did not cover the cost of caring for a child under the rising cost of living; 38% of carers had experienced mental health issues due to the cost of living crisis; and 92% of carers felt financially worse off compared with the previous year. Those are stark findings.
Of course, behind the headline figures are people—dedicated, compassionate and vulnerable people who care and are cared for—and their individual stories. The headline figures do not demonstrate the main consequential impacts, which are that more foster carers are leaving the role than joining and that the numbers are declining against a backdrop of record numbers of children who need foster carers. That is borne out by statistics published in November last year by Ofsted in relation to fostering in England, which revealed that significantly more foster carers had chosen to leave the role in 2023 compared with the number joining.
Sarah Thomas, chief executive of the Fostering Network, the leading organisation for foster care, has said that
“the Ofsted data shows the immense pressure the fostering system is under—and there simply aren’t enough foster carers to meet the rising number of children coming into care.
For the second year in a row we are seeing a net decrease in the number of foster carers available…Recruitment of foster carers is the most crucial issue facing fostering services across”
the UK. The Fostering Network is
“calling for a UK-wide strategy to address…the urgent need to”
both
“recruit and retain foster carers”,
because the indication is that
“these annual losses will continue unless urgent action of a much greater scale is taken.”
The Fostering Network is not alone in that opinion. The vice-chair of the Martin James Foundation, Daniel Croft, who was recently awarded an MBE for his services to fostering, has said that
“current financial pressures on our foster carers have never been greater and if we do not act, we are at risk of losing the largest dedicated workforce for children in the U.K.”
We simply cannot allow that to happen, so let us examine the hurdles that must be overcome—and how they can be overcome—to prevent a worsening of the existential crisis in fostering by effecting urgent action on a much greater scale.
As a lay person to the foster care debate, ahead of this debate I met experts from FosterTalk, the Fostering Network and CoramBAAF, the UK’s leading membership organisation for professionals working across adoption, fostering and kinship care. Those experts repeatedly highlighted similar complex aspects, and I want to raise the allowances paid to foster carers—foremost, the inconsistency of how national minimum allowances are applied.
The national minimum allowances for foster carers are set by each of the UK Governments. They vary depending on where the foster carer lives and the age of the child they care for. Notably, Scotland was late to the table and introduced national minimum allowances only in August last year—I will say more about that shortly. I can understand that the different age bands of children is relevant. Babies, for example, have different needs from teenagers. Historically, social security allowances for children recognised that and the Fostering Network continues to broadly follow that model. However, varying amounts according to where someone lives is something that I cannot understand. It is a classic example of an extremely unfair postcode lottery.
According to the most recent weekly fostering allowances report for the financial year 2023-24 that the Fostering Network published last September, children’s experiences of the application of allowances, even within the same nation and for the same age bracket, is far from consistent. For example, allowances paid in respect of children four years and under in Wales varies between local authorities by up to £43.96 per week; and in England, it varies by up to £92.34 per week, equating to an astonishing maximum difference of £4,801.68 each year.
In Scotland, the same allowance varied by up to £89.24 a week. However, as I have mentioned, I am pleased that the Scottish Government recognised this inequality and introduced, for the first time, a set rate that all local authorities must pay for foster and kinship carers. I hope that that move will reduce the future level of variance in Scotland. The new Scottish-recommended allowance was backdated to 1 April 2023 and has benefited more than 9,000 children. If local authorities in Scotland happened to be paying above the recommended allowance, the higher amount stayed in payment so that no one was worse off because of that commitment.
The Fostering Network welcomed that positive move. None the less, it has calculated that the allowance levels across all four nations still fall short of the true cost of caring for a child in foster care. The example I gave of allowances paid in respect of children who are four years and under is by no means the worst. The difference in allowances paid in respect of children between the ages of 11 and 15 in England amounts to a whopping £8,470.80 over the 2023-24 financial year. Additionally, in England, there are different minimum weekly allowances set, depending on whether someone lives in London, the south-east or the rest of England.
Notably, Northern Ireland is the only nation where all trust foster carers, including kinship carers, receive the same rate of allowances to cover the cost of caring for a child in foster care. I commend Northern Ireland for its consistent approach, which is administered by a central service, not local authorities. Unfortunately, however, Northern Ireland’s national minimum allowance is the lowest paid across all the UK nations.
On top of the inconsistency of how national minimum allowances are applied, there is also the disparity of whether additional allowances are paid to foster carers. These can be provided for things such as holidays, religious festivals, birthdays, school uniforms, an initial stock of clothing and mileage to fuel mum or dad’s taxi. We all know that those things can have an added pressure on household finances at the best of times, let alone during a cost of living crisis. Indeed, one carer who voiced concerns in FosterTalk’s cost of living survey said:
“I worry that energy, fuel and food prices will keep going up and we get more strike action, more disruption and it all impacts negatively on our foster children who already have had too much worry and negativity in their lives.”
That strikes at the heart of the problem. The inequality created by the current system for children in foster care means that some are not being given the opportunities to recover from the upheavals that they have experienced, to enable them to go on to achieve their aspirations.
A significant number of the local authorities that completed freedom of information requests that informed the Fostering Network’s most recent report on weekly fostering allowances stated that everything is included in the national minimum allowance. How can it be fair that a child can benefit from an additional allowance in one local authority when another child in exactly the same circumstances in a neighbouring local authority cannot? I have even heard anecdotal evidence of foster carers moving between local authorities so that children in their care can benefit from more generous allowances.
Additionally, different local authorities offer different discounts on rates of council tax to foster carers, ranging from zero to 100%. It is utterly unjust. On what level is it acceptable that 3% of those who responded to FosterTalk’s cost of living survey had used a food bank to support their family? Now, 3% might not seem like a lot, but that amounts to 130 families who took the survey and who have taken on the responsibilities that lie with their local authority to care for and nurture those children. Remember, too, that the 3% is from the 4,349 foster carer respondents, which does not account for the wider expanse of fostering households, of which there are 43,405 in England alone, as at the end of March 2023. A reasonable appraisal is therefore that the number of families having to use a food bank could be increased, perhaps tenfold. No wonder the number of foster carers is declining.
The Fostering Network has proposed a fairer funding framework for foster carers that is simplified as well as consistent. Taking account of Loughborough University’s minimum income standard for the UK and of Nina Oldfield’s “The Adequacy of Foster Carer Allowances”, which identifies the additional costs of caring for a child in foster care, the Fostering Network collaborated with Pro Bono Economics to calculate suggested rates of foster care allowances that
“include funds to enable foster families to save for birthdays, holidays and cultural or religious festival payments with the intention that foster carers can control and spend these additional funds as they see fit.”
That is a sensible proposal to eradicate the inequality that the system creates.
Another inequality in the system is that there is no national minimum allowance for young people aged 18 years and over to remain living in their foster family environment until they are ready to live independently. According to the most recent fostering allowances report, the difference in allowances paid to the 18-plus group across the UK nations is the most extreme, amounting to a staggering sum of £12,044 annually. That deficiency must be addressed, as young people’s needs do not stop because they turn 18.
The Fostering Network’s suggested rates of foster care allowances were underpinned by the principles of being child-centred, efficient—as well as sufficient—trusting, aspirational and, last but not least, consistent. Those seem to me to be quality principles. Will the Minister consider the Fostering Network’s recommended rates so that the full cost of caring for a child is covered? Will he look at addressing the needs of young people who turn 18 so that the best outcomes for care leavers are enabled? Will he also advise if the routine uplift to the national minimum allowances is ringfenced?
I must make one final and important point: the disparities that have been highlighted today would not have come to light without the monitoring that is carried out by the Fostering Network every year, and I thank it and FosterTalk for making today’s debate possible. I also thank both organisations for taking time away from their important work to meet me.
The Fostering Network, however, can only obtain information through freedom of information requests to local authorities because they are public bodies. Information from independent fostering agencies, which are not obliged to respond to freedom of information requests, is missing. Will the Minister therefore examine the possibility of the monitoring of all foster care providers being undertaken by a Department? Such a move could also address further disparities in the rules and regulations that exist in the foster care system, such as carers receiving payments between placements or how carers can receive support when an allegation has been made against them—statistics show that a majority of people against whom allegations have been made are completely exonerated.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation that he has set out with the handling of complaints is a symptom of the fact that, because they are not employees, foster carers cannot be members of trade unions and, as a result, cannot seek support by a route that would be available to most typical employees?
Martyn Day
The hon. Member makes a very good point. Foster carers are all self-employed and have to deal with all the complexities of that, including tax returns, as well as with the vital role of caring.
At the very least, a review of how allowances are applied to foster carers is urgently needed. Foster carers must receive a payment that takes account of the full cost of caring for a child, now and into future years. Foster carers need to be recognised for the work they do, and children deserve better.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this debate, and I pay tribute to everybody who took the time to sign the petition, including 48 residents in my constituency of Stretford and Urmston. Like those people, I care passionately about ensuring that foster carers are recognised and supported.
In preparing for the debate, I was fortunate that a member of my office staff, Emma Hirst, had been a foster carer for over 20 years, up until very recently. In that time, Emma provided a loving and supportive home to countless children, including refugee children, many of whom had been through immense hardship. I place on record my thanks to Emma, and to all the foster carers in Stretford and Urmston and more widely, for the life-changing impact that they have had on some of the most vulnerable people in my community and across the country. My comments will be shaped by Emma’s experience.
Emma told me that, during her 20-year spell as a foster carer, the role became increasingly challenging. When she started, the children who came into her care were often traumatised, but back then they were able to access mental health support, pastoral care at school and youth services, all of which were vital for their education and wellbeing. A decade of Conservative austerity has eroded those services, and the children who came into her care in later years faced increasingly lengthy waits for any kind of support.
The focus of today’s debate is financial support for foster carers, but inadequate financial support must be seen in the broader context of the decline of the public services that foster carers once relied on to make their jobs easier, which is a key reason for the recruitment and retention crisis in fostering.
Despite the pressure she was under, Emma, like foster carers across the country, was registered as self-employed and was therefore unable to access sick pay, payment for time off or any real employment rights. As I mentioned, like other foster carers, she also was not able to be represented by a trade union. Ultimately, it all became too much; Emma was burned out, and she recently took the decision to stop fostering. Like any true foster carer, however, she made time over Christmas to take a baby on an emergency basis, because foster carers are always there to look after children in desperate need.
Although Emma’s decision is understandable, it is a huge loss to fostering services in my community. Her example shows the importance of putting the right support in place for foster carers. Naturally, there is a financial element to that. The altruistic nature of fostering means that conversations about money are often shied away from, and our admiration for foster carers does not pay the bills, so it is right to discuss these allowances, tax arrangements and fees. That is not least because, as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned, the fostering allowance does not cover the full cost of providing foster care to a child.
I will give credit where it is due: in December, the Government announced a 6.88% uplift to the foster care national minimum allowance. I also welcome the changes made last year that mean that most foster carers will no longer pay tax on that income. But I wish to focus the majority of my comments on those fostering allowances, because I note that the increases to the minimum allowance still fall short of the recommendations made by the Fostering Network.
I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what assessment his Department has made of the affordability of the national allowances called for by the Fostering Network. Moreover, I would be grateful if he would clarify where the funding for the 6.88% uplift will come from. I am unclear whether local authorities will have to find that money from existing budgets. Given the perilous state of local government finance, that may prove unmanageable for councils across the country. I am sure the Minister intends to fund the uplift from an alternative source, but I would be grateful for his reassurance on that point.
Another crucial point is that the fostering allowances are a postcode lottery for many people. In England, only 26% of local authorities pay the national minimum allowance at all the age bands. That results in discrepancies: for example, the maximum difference in allowance rates payable for 11 to 15-year-olds in England is as great as more than £8,000 per year. When we all agree that all children’s lives are of equal importance, that cannot be acceptable. Will the Department consider monitoring compliance with the national minimum allowance and look into reviewing fee payments so that there is more consistent compensation for the time, skills and experience of foster carers?
If we needed a reminder of the importance of getting this right, it came with Ofsted’s data on foster care for 2023, which showed a 6% fall to 35,000 over the past two years in the number of mainstream households in England who are fostering. The data also showed that the number of applications to become foster carers fell by over 3,000 between 2021 and 2023. This recruitment and retention crisis comes at a time when the care population continues to grow; it now stands at over 83,000.
The value of foster carers is in allowing children to be placed in environments that feel more like a real home, rather than in the less natural environment of a care home. It is also in the financial savings to local authorities, because many placements in care homes and other settings can be incredibly expensive. These trends are simply unsustainable; for the good of vulnerable children and the foster carers who are so dedicated to them, we must address them. I look forward to hearing more about how the Government intend to do that when the Minister responds.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Graham, to debate this important petition on foster care allowances and support for foster families. I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is travelling back from a memorial service abroad and is very sorry to miss the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening the debate so powerfully on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the more than 13,000 people, including those from my constituency, Feltham and Heston, who signed the petition. I also thank all our foster carers across the country, including in my borough of Hounslow.
Foster families provide a loving home for 68% of looked-after children in England. Foster caring can be challenging but also very rewarding, and it can be absolutely transformative for vulnerable children. Fostering relationships can last long beyond the duration of a placement, giving some of our country’s most vulnerable children lifelong, stable and loving relationships too. I am grateful to FosterTalk and the Fostering Network for their tireless support and campaigning on the impacts of the cost of living on foster families and the children they care for.
We have heard today about the enormous challenges facing foster carers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for his speech, in which we heard the story of Emma from his office and the change in support that she has experienced over the last decade. He also referred to the ongoing recruitment and retention challenges, which I will comment on further.
Fourteen years of Conservative government has stripped away vital family support, shifting the focus of children’s services to providing an emergency service rather than early intervention to help families stay together. The cost of living crisis has pushed so many families into hardship, but foster families, who have been undervalued for many years, have been impacted particularly hard. FosterTalk’s 2022 survey, which the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk referred to extensively, found that 92% of foster carers feel financially worse off, and 18% have been pushed into debt in recent years. Reference was also made to the use of food banks. Some 66% of carers have been forced to cut down on their heating to cope with soaring energy costs, and 38% feel that their mental health has been affected due to the increase in the cost of living.
The Government set the national minimum allowance for foster carers annually in April. The increases in April 2023 and the planned above-inflation increases from April 2024 are very welcome, but it is essential that the funding actually reaches foster families. Across the country there is a postcode lottery, with some fostering services paying families significantly below the national minimum allowance. The Fostering Network has found that some services significantly underfund the allowance for an 11 to 15-year-old, for example, by as much as £2,333 per year. I hope that the Minister can update us on what he is doing to ensure that all services offer at least the national minimum allowance, and to ensure proper monitoring of that allowance across the country.
It is important that support for foster families reflects the impact of the last two years on family finances. Although the headline rate of inflation may have fallen, let us remember that food inflation remains high, at more than 9%, while the Government’s mismanagement of the economy has hammered households with rising mortgage and rent costs. The Labour party will always put children and families first. We have already set out plans to help address the cost of living for families. Just some of the costed measures we have announced include acting now to ensure that every family caring for a primary-aged pupil has access to a free breakfast club, and limiting the number of costly branded school uniform items to save families hundreds of pounds through a child’s time at school. What assessment has the Department made of the specific impacts of rising costs on foster families?
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk talked powerfully about the urgent crisis in recruitment and retention of foster families. Worryingly, more than four in 10 foster carers are thinking of leaving fostering. At the same time, fewer and fewer households are registering to become foster carers, and the conversion rate of people who express interest in fostering to actual foster carers is vanishingly small.
We also need diversity in our foster carer network so that families have options for closer matches to their cultures, foods or faiths, which helps a child to feel settled at an anxious time. The Department’s own figures show a 26% decrease in newly registered households since 2019. The same figures show more households leaving fostering during the year than joining, at a time when the number of children in care continues to increase. Without the right placements, more children will end up being placed in homes that do not meet their needs. In 2021, all but six local fostering services reported a shortage in the number of carers they need for their local population.
There is an urgent need for more foster carers who can look after teenagers, large sibling groups, children with complex needs, and children with special educational needs and disabilities. Foster caring is more than simply opening a home to an additional child; it requires skill and dedication. Looked-after children are more likely than other children to have experienced a severe trauma in their lives, such as bereavement, abuse or neglect, and foster carers need to have a good understanding of a wide range of needs.
In response to the independent review of children’s social care led by Josh MacAlister, the Government committed to a nationwide recruitment and retention programme for foster carers. When does the Minister expect to be able to update the House on the progress of pathfinder areas and plans for any wider roll-out across the country?
The challenges facing foster carers and the children they look after must be placed in the context of the wider crisis in children’s social care. The number of children entering the care system continues to rise, but the Government have eroded the support that they need. More than 1,300 Sure Start centres have closed since 2010, while the funding offer to local councils for children’s services has fallen by an estimated 24% since 2010.
Perhaps the Minister will point towards his Department’s family hub programme, but he cannot escape the fact that that programme is funded in only half of all local authority areas. The high turnover in children’s social workers and the loss of experienced staff are creating uncertainty for foster families and those applying to foster. At the same time, the 10 biggest providers of children’s homes and private foster care placements are raking in huge profits from public money, more of which should be spent on the wellbeing of vulnerable children.
Foster carers are a vital part of our children’s social care system. They provide a loving and safe home to tens of thousands of children across the country, but they urgently need better support and recognition for their wider role. I hope that the Minister will set out how the Government will act quickly to ensure that all foster carers are better supported, so that more people who are able to offer a stable and loving home to vulnerable children can be urgently encouraged to take up the very important role of being a foster carer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
It is a pleasure, Sir Graham, to serve under your chairmanship.
I start by thanking all those who have signed the petition on this important issue; I also thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling this debate; and I specifically thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for leading it. I also pay tribute to Fostertalk and the Fostering Network; I think that every Member who has spoken in the debate has cited at least some of their work and we in the Department very much value it too.
Foster carers provide transformational support for children in care. They build relationships, even in a very short period of time, that are loving, long-standing and deeply valued by the children they look after. Without foster carers opening up their homes and lives, we would not have a care system.
Although fostering can be hugely rewarding, it takes hard work, skill and dedication. Anyone who is familiar with the care system deeply values and respects what foster families do every day for our most vulnerable children. That was set out very clearly by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who talked about Emma and the fantastic work that she has done for children in her care.
The petition underpinning this debate called on the Government to review and increase the allowances paid to foster carers and to consider tax exemption levels. I should note that at this point that children’s social care is a devolved issue, meaning that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments are responsible for their own policies.
Financial support for foster carers continues to be a particularly important issue as household expenses are still much higher than we would like them to be; indeed, those expenses were especially high when the petition was created in October 2022. Help with the cost of living was cited in helpful research from the Fostering Network, Fostertalk and FosterWiki. Although inflation is now down to 3.9% from 11.1% in October 2022, we are committed to supporting foster carers to deal with rising costs.
In March, we set out our response to the petition. We have increased the minimum fostering allowance by 12.43% and raised qualifying care relief for foster carers, with the latter change representing an average tax cut of £450 per year. Fostertalk, which launched the petition, described our announcement as “fantastic news” and said it was a
“positive development for the foster care community”.
As has been touched on, in order to support foster carers further, from April 2024 we will raise allowances by a further 6.88%, marking two consecutive years of above-inflation increases to foster carer allowances. That means a foster carer in the tax year 2024-25 will earn between £28 and £49 more per week, per child, than they did in the 2022-23 tax year. Over a full year, this will equate to between £1,456 and £2,548 more in allowances. We have also committed to ensuring that qualifying care relief will rise with inflation each year, so foster carers will have more left in their pocket to support the children in their care.
More broadly, there are three key categories of financial support for foster carers. First, there is the national minimum allowance to cover the additional cost of the child, which, as I have mentioned, we have increased at an above-inflation rate for two years running. Secondly, there are fee payments, set locally by councils and fostering agencies to recognise and compensate foster carers for their expertise, skills and development. Thirdly, there are any expenses that have been agreed by the foster service provider.
The national minimum allowance was introduced in 2007 to try and ensure that foster carers are not financially disadvantaged by looking after a child or young person. It is meant to cover the cost of raising an extra child in the home. It should pay for the child’s food, clothing, transport and additional costs, and support children to take up hobbies and have pocket money, as other children would. The rates are set centrally by Government, and we expect all fostering service providers to pay at least the national minimum. Indeed, many local authorities or agencies choose to pay more. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk touched on, a similar allowance was introduced in Scotland earlier this year.
Every year, the Department for Education works with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to review the allowance and consider any changes in inflation and affordability for local government. The allowance operates on a sliding scale, with levels rising as children become older, and with higher rates in parts of the country where costs are typically higher. On the discussion about variation, most of the variation cited by the Fostering Network is the result of councils choosing to pay significantly above the national minimum, as well as the flexibility we give to local authorities to set rates. I will return in a moment to the monitoring that we might do on whether they are paying that.
The 12.43% increase was a record uplift, which represented an increase of between £17 and £30 in allowances per child, per week. The further allowance from April will be an additional £11 to £19 in allowance per child, per week. Beyond the allowance, councils and fostering agencies have the flexibility to provide fee payments for foster carers that reflect their experience, skills and development, as was touched on, or to provide extra support for children with more complex needs. Many fostering service providers supplement that with local offers, including council tax deductions, and discounts for local child-friendly attractions and services. Fostering service providers often provide extra money for taking children on holiday, or to celebrate a birthday or religious festival. Finally, fostering service providers also agree expenses with their foster carers. For example, foster carers may receive travel expenses or be reimbursed for the cost of a school trip.
Moving on to tax arrangements in the second part of the petition, we review tax arrangements for foster carers, ensuring that tax relief is appropriate over time, supporting carers now and in future. Foster carers benefit from qualifying care relief, which means that they do not pay tax on any income below an earnings threshold. In March, we raised that household earnings threshold, as well as the weekly threshold for each looked-after child. For each household, the first £18,140 of income is now tax-free, up from the previous level of £10,000. Additionally, foster carers pay no tax on £375 of income for each child under the age of 11, and no tax on £450 of income for each child over the age of 11. This means that the vast majority of fostering households will now pay no tax on their fostering income, and it simplifies the tax return process that foster carers have to complete. For a fostering household with one fostered child, the first £37,640 of fostering income is tax-free for a child under 11, with the tax-free amount rising to £41,540 for a child over 11. Our recent increase represents a tax cut of £450 a year for fostering households, and we have committed to raising qualifying care relief by the consumer price index measure of inflation every year.
Foster carers can access a range of benefits, and the money that carers receive from fostering is disregarded when calculating means-tested benefits. Fees and allowances are not taken into account as earnings or income, so do not affect the amount of universal credit to which a foster carer may be entitled. Child benefit, or the child element of universal credit, is included in the allowance paid to foster carers from the local authority, but foster carers can claim child benefit for their own birth children. Birth children of foster parents are entitled to the additional 15 hours of funded childcare, as well as being entitled to an extra bedroom for the purposes of housing benefit and universal credit, meaning that they do not lose out following the removal of the spare bedroom subsidy. Foster carers who combine fostering with other employment can get extra funded childcare hours for their foster children, as long as that childcare is consistent with the child’s care plan and agreed with their social worker.
I will briefly touch on the questions raised; if I miss any, I am happy to write to Members with the answers. The allowance is not ringfenced. In December, I wrote to local authorities to remind them of the duty and our expectation that they pay at least the minimum allowance. I share Members’ frustrations where local authorities are not doing that, since we are giving them the money to be able to do so. We will certainly consider collecting more data to ensure that the minimum is being paid. As I say, I wrote to all local authorities in December to reiterate our expectations in this matter.
The 6.88% increase is additional money through the local government finance settlement and the increase in core spending. We are investing £36 million—again, a record amount—to improve recruitment and retention, which a number of hon. Members touched on, and to improve approvals and help more people to undertake this vital role. We are working with more than 60% of local authorities in order to do that.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), asked for an update on fostering. It will shortly be the anniversary of the publication of “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, our strategy for transforming social care as a whole, and we will provide an update on what has been happening with our fostering work, the north-east pathfinder, Mockingbird and so on, alongside everything else.
In conclusion, I once again thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, and the Petitions Committee generally, for tabling this debate. I am committed to our programme of reform and proud of the Government’s record levels of investment and support for foster carers. I know that all Members present, as well as those not present—as the hon. Gentleman touched on, there is an important statement in the Chamber; otherwise, I feel sure more Members would be present—admire the work that foster carers do for their communities and, most importantly, for the children in their care. It is important we give them all the support we can.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
With time for a brief wind-up, I call Mr Day.
Martyn Day
Thank you very much, Sir Graham. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for coming along today, and to the Minister and shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for their comments. I think we speak as one when we send our gratitude to foster carers for their hard work and determination to give all our young people a loving and supported environment in which they can be respected. Equally, I do not think there can be any doubt that cost of living pressures are putting a much greater burden on those foster carers, and I hope that we can look again in the future at doing more to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 625515 relating to allowances and tax arrangements for foster carers.
Poverty: International Development Aid
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote the end of absolute poverty through international development aid.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a proud history of tackling poverty with our aid spending. The White Paper on international development re-energises that work, setting out how we will focus aid where it is most needed and most effective. The UK aims to spend at least 50% of our bilateral aid in the least developed countries. But aid alone will not end absolute poverty, and the UK uses a range of levers, including our expertise and policy influence, to support our partners’ development objectives.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s change of focus and the cuts mean that, in spite of the Minister’s reply, the UK has lost its focus on poverty reduction. UK aid to Africa fell by £258 million in 2022, and its share of aid reduced from 52.3% to 44.1%. The situation in Asia was similar, and further cuts are planned. Africa has around 500 million people living below the poverty line. Does the Minister accept that, if the UK is to play a significant role in ending absolute poverty by 2030, the Government must refocus on poverty reduction in Africa? Can he set out, now or in writing, the poverty-focused UK spending in Africa aimed directly at reducing absolute poverty? Can he set out when spending on poverty reduction in Africa and Asia will return to pre-cut levels?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord; we have achieved a great deal on the eradication of poverty. Focused on humanitarian support, we have provided more than £1 billion of life-saving support in humanitarian emergencies. We have committed £90 million to support in education emergencies, and the UK spent almost £1 billion on global health in ODA in 2022. I take the noble Lord’s point on Africa, and he will be pleased to know that, in 2024-25, we will increase our ODA spend there to £1.3 billion.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that we cannot do much about poverty unless we control population? Can he explain why, despite large amounts of money being spent on aid, millions of women still do not have access to family planning?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. The issue of population and, linked to that, education is key. That is why the Government have repeatedly committed themselves to the importance of quality education for girls and the empowerment of women. As we move towards 2030 through the White Paper, we will focus much of our spending—up to about 80%—on ensuring that we focus on the drivers. That includes focusing spending specifically on education and empowerment, including women’s and girls’ personal health—that is a key focus. So I agree with the noble Lord, and our spending and programmes will be focused in that way.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that ODA is not the only lever we have. The average low-income country now spends 2.3 times more on servicing debt payments than on social assistance. In introducing the White Paper, Andrew Mitchell said that we need to “do far more” on debt relief. Does the Minister agree with the UN Development Programme that
“advancing the Sustainable Development Goals hinges on reshaping the global financial system”?
Can he tell us what progress the department has made, as Andrew Mitchell also referred to, in talks with the G20 on a common framework on increasing access for low-income countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord raises important points. First, on the issue of less developed countries, I alluded to the focus on girls and women. About 80% of our spend by 2030 will be on that, tackling the structural issues that the noble Lord highlighted. It is important that we look not just at providing development support but at issues of debt, trade, tax and corruption—and at delivering the challenges across health and climate change. The White Paper acts as a framework to our conversations, not just with our G7 and G20 partners but beyond. We are very much focused on empowerment through aid, and we will work with private sector partners in an increased fashion to ensure that, for every pound of support spent on development aid, we fully leverage private finance in this area as well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as has already been said, the impact on women and girls is disproportionate. Liz Truss agreed with us in November 2021, when she gave a crystal clear promise. She said that she had
“decided to restore the women and girls development budget to what it was before the Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) cut”.
Everything that the Government have subsequently announced in the White Paper will mean that we are not at pre-cuts levels for women and girls. Why on earth was this promise shamefully reneged on?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First, I understand that it is the noble Lord’s birthday, so I extend my best wishes and those of your Lordships’ House—he is 21 once again.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know what my present will be—the Minister’s answer.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Well, apart from my dulcet tones, my present is to reassure the noble Lord of the Government’s commitment to girls’ education, with the spending on women. I accept that the former Prime Minister detailed that, and I agreed with the Prime Minister at that time about the focus on girls and women when it comes to our development spending. That will be a focus. The noble Lord will have seen our women and girls strategy, which runs to 2030 and has a specific focus on ensuring that we reach those objectives. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke previously that we absolutely must spend more on girls’ education, but there is a second element to that, which is the empowerment of women. That will help us in supporting other countries as well as helping those countries to get themselves out of poverty and become increasingly self-sufficient.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, very helpfully, in the White Paper there was an emphasis on the importance of locally designed and led development for tackling absolute poverty, and there was a promise of a strategy for reaching that. What stage is it at, and when will that strategy be seen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to raise that question. I will take back the specific issue of an update on the strategy and write to him, but we believe very much in localised solutions. That is why, when we consulted on the White Paper, there were more than 70 countries that we consulted with, and we received about 426 replies from about 46 countries. That ensured that our White Paper demonstrably showed what local needs stood for. On the development of the paper, I will write to the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My noble friend has mentioned many factors: aid, education, tax. The one word he has not mentioned is trade. Does he not agree that trade liberalisation is one of the greatest engines for relieving poverty? That is how the countries of south-east Asia went from undeveloped status to middle-income status. Is not one of the greatest threats to developing countries today the increase in protectionism, much of which exists among the advanced industrial countries, including the United States and Europe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I totally agree with my noble friend I am sure that Hansard will correct me otherwise, but I think I did mention trade. I agree that trade is part and parcel of this, which is why we are working with the BII and British investment partnerships to ensure that we raise and leverage more financing to ensure sustainability. It is not just about providing aid; this is about development support, which allows countries to really progress directly themselves, and we need private finance and the private sector to work hand in glove with us on this.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister, or rather do the Government, understand that there is a link between the super-rich getting richer—for example, five men have since 2020 been adding £14 million per hour to their wealth—versus 5 billion people who have fallen into greater poverty? There is a link between inequality and the whole issue of being able to mop up poverty. Do the Government understand that link?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness differentiated between me as a Minister of the Crown and the Government. I assure her that we are at one and we totally understand the connection that she makes, because it is right. That is why we must focus on the most vulnerable. Again, I reiterate our focus on issues of girls’ education and the empowerment of women, because it is the most vulnerable who suffer and inequalities fuel that. We will focus on this in many of our programmes. That is why my right honourable friend the Development Minister has published our figures beyond this year and into next year, to demonstrably show how we are increasing funding, notwithstanding the challenges we face with the reduction to 0.5%, to ensure that there is real transparency in the British Government’s spending.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the White Paper makes several laudable commitments, some of which require significant upfront investments, such as access to basic services, and that brings us the uncomfortable question of how these projects will be resourced, given not one but two huge hits to our ODA budget: some 25% lost due to the UK abandoning its 0.7% commitment, and almost 30% of what is left being spent on housing refugees in the UK. Can the Minister confirm the net budget for overseas aid once both these factors are taken into account?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the strategic decision to reduce was taken because of domestic pressures. It was right that we gave a commitment to return to 0.7%, and the Government stand by that. On the issue of domestic spending on refugees, we have always acted within the DAC rules and we continue to do so. I do not think a single noble Lord will dispute that it is right that we have taken responsibility for those coming to the UK, whether from Ukraine, from Hong Kong or coming directly from Afghanistan, as they have recently, and that we use that money to help support them. We will act within the DAC rules. It does mean, yes, that there is less spending there, but it also ensures that we fulfil the responsibility that we owe to those coming to the UK to rebuild their lives.
Engineered Stone and Silicosis
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to restricting the use of engineered stone, following the decision by Australia to ban it; and whether they plan to make silicosis a notifiable disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive, HSE, is not currently considering restricting the use of engineered stone. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations already require employers to put in place measures to prevent workers being exposed to respirable crystalline silica. This includes adequate controls ensuring compliance with the workplace exposure limit and health surveillance identifying potential ill health. HSE keeps requirements for reporting occupational diseases under review and is not currently making silicosis reportable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but Australia acted after it found that one in four stonemasons had incurable, debilitating and sometimes fatal silicosis. Estimates suggest that, in the UK, 1,000 people a year die from silicosis as a workplace disease and many more suffer from debilitating conditions—not just stonemasons but construction workers, engineers and agricultural workers. Surely the Government should at least look into this further and get more data on a problem on which Australia, which is broadly comparable to us, has found it crucial and essential to act.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am pleased that the noble Baroness has raised this point. She will know that the HSE is different from Safe Work Australia because the latter does not work as a national workplace regulator and instead sets policy. According to our figures, Australia has reported 260 cases of silicosis. However, a significant number of workers using engineered stone in Australia are known to be SMEs or sole traders, who remain hard to reach. To answer the question of the noble Baroness, we are very much in touch with Australia on this important matter.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as someone with former downstream involvement in the industry, I welcome this important Question. I suggest that we confine any debate on further restriction to the dry cut of granite, cement and quartz and not to other products. Engineered stone is primarily quartz; if cut wet, there is little problem but, if cut dry, it can lead to dust and lung problems and may well require further regulation. This is a problem primarily in Europe, as there is now very little dry-cut activity in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes some very helpful comments. He is right that individuals are most at risk when dry cutting and polishing are being performed. In Great Britain, as I think he alluded to, engineered stone is mostly imported. He makes an interesting point about the amount of silica content found in engineered stone: yes, it is high, but sandstone also contains 70% to 90% and granite 25% to 60%. The Health and Safety Executive and COSHH have taken good measures on that over many years.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am not very reassured by the Minister’s comments on British health and safety precautions and enforcement. Can he explain in greater detail what we are doing, rather than just hoping that this will go away? Are cases increasing, and are there numbers for illness in the UK, not Australia, from these causes?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
In contradiction to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, our information is that nobody has suffered any long-term exposure to silicosis. There are instances of non-compliance, which have reduced from 19% to 11%, but the HSE has been tackling exposure to RCS for many years through a mature regulatory model that combines targeted inspection activity on high-risk activity, communications activity and working with stakeholders.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the issue of silicosis from stone grinding has been known since the 1940s, when it was first described by the late Dr Donald Hunter, an expert on industrial disease. He recommended a number of precautions. Are the available precautions, which should be enforced, now clear and do the Government understand them? Are they similar to those introduced in Australia?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can reassure the House that, as mentioned before, most engineered stone in the UK is imported. There could be an issue where engineered stone is used for fitting kitchen worktops, where the importance of PPE and masks is understandably difficult to monitor. However, the HSE and COSHH have been looking at this over many years.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain what is behind the reluctance to make silicosis a recordable disease? If we did so, we would be able to monitor the size of the problem and put in place further preventative interventions and thus, in the long term, save the public purse in both the NHS and the benefits system.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Health and Safety Executive recently carried out a post-implementation review, or PIR, of RIDDOR, which, as the noble Baroness will know, deal with the reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences, with a view to expanding that to include areas where HSE regulatory intervention can add value. HSE will start the process of reviewing the remaining recommendations—including the inclusion of pneumoconiosis, which is, in effect, silicosis—within the next business year.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the HSE’s own website says:
“Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos”.
As the Minister said, it is found in engineered stone which is used extensively in kitchens and bathrooms for counter-tops. The UK has a silica exposure limit of 0.1 milligrams per cubic metre. As I understand it, that is twice the legal limit in the United States and Germany, and four times that in Portugal. I ask the Minister: has this has been looked at recently? Is he aware that the first case of someone getting silicosis was in Australia in only 2015? Since then, hundreds more cases have come online. In Australia, this is being talked about as the asbestos of the 2020s. I urge the Government not to be complacent about it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I reassure the House that Great Britain has a very good record in this area and the European Union reflects our approach. For example, the silica limit in Great Britain—as the noble Baroness has pointed out—is 0.1 milligrams per metre cubed, which was set in 2006 and is now comparative across the world. The EU considered a lower limit, but it was not adopted due to uncertainties about the reliability of measuring techniques below the limit we are at.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the reports in the Scottish media that part of the Stone of Destiny has been taken into private ownership by a member of the Scottish National Party? Which department is responsible for recovering it, and what are they doing about it?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems with silicosis is that it is not necessarily diagnosed by doctors and recorded on death certificates. That is because it is not a well-recognised condition apart from among experts. This means that deaths as a consequence of chronic obstructive pul—
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Noble Lords know what word I mean: COPD. Deaths that are consequent on COPD do not necessarily record silicosis. Do His Majesty’s Government support the recommendations of the APPG on respiratory diseases, particularly the need for an industry awareness campaign on silicosis?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, the noble Lord makes some very good points. I reassure him that the current HSE silica intervention continues to raise awareness of the requirement to adequately control exposure to RCS, for those in the construction sector and those providing materials for construction, such as brick manufacturers and stone fabricators. These campaigns will continue through 2024.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the sense of complacency has been very strong. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that, in many cases, exposure to silica is producing diseases in young people aged 19 to 26 in Australia. Given the concern about the health and well-being of our workforce, are the Government considering that this and other issues in workplace safety are a significant contributor to our problem of so many people of working age being unable to work because of health?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
It is easy for the noble Baroness to say that we are complacent, but we are not. I have laid out a number of actions that we are taking. The HSE has continued to deliver inspection campaigns in industries associated with RCS exposure. The HSE also investigates concerns about inadequate risk management, which has been going on for many years. I mentioned the post-implementation review, and HSE will start the process of reviewing the remaining recommendations—including the inclusion of pneumoconiosis—within the next business year, as I said earlier.
Driving Licence: Young and Newly Qualified Drivers
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to introduce a graduated driving licence for young and newly qualified drivers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Transport has no plans to introduce a graduated driving licence scheme for young drivers. The department commissioned the £2 million Driver2020 research project to examine interventions designed to help learner and newly qualified drivers improve their skills and safety. We look forward to receiving the findings from that project, which will feed into considerations on further measures we could take to improve road safety for young drivers.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will know that, in Wales, seven young men—still teenagers—lost their lives in tragic car accidents in the few weeks before Christmas. Year after year, young drivers, particularly young men, are grossly overrepresented in road casualty rates, and research shows that a combination of inexperience and incomplete brain development often features in the cause of accidents—although I obviously cannot comment on the two concerned. There is widespread support for graduated driving licences from the Association of British Insurers, the RAC, Brake, Project EDWARD and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Will the Minister agree to add to the work that the Government are currently doing a thorough look at their recommendations to see whether it is now time for graduated driving licences in order to save these lives?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that the Government take this very seriously and are always prepared to listen to what others have to say. Going back to my earlier point, our largest young driver research piece is the Driver2020 project, an evaluation of interventions to improve the safety of young, novice drivers in partnership with the Transport Research Laboratory. It started in 2019 with 28,000 learner and novice drivers taking part and was completed in summer 2022. We look forward to getting the report this year.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a qualified HGV driving instructor; I have done a lot of work with young drivers. Why does my noble friend the Minister not understand that young, novice drivers are completely ill-equipped and unable to block out distractions from youngsters in the back of the vehicle unless they have an older driver with them?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I do understand that. It is not a question of generalising; not all drivers are that bad. We must aim at making sure that the young, novice driver—who is perhaps not as experienced as others—is properly dealt with.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, while one has enormous sympathy with what is behind this Question, how can the Government get into these matters of further sophistication when there is an enormous waiting list for driving tests? The last stated figure was an 18 and a half-week wait for a driving test, which is very important to people trying to get jobs. The Government are supposed to be working towards a nine-week target. Can the Minister report progress on that, or is it just another example of a country that is not working any more?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord exact figures on that issue, but we will have a look at it and perhaps write to him.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, no one wants to prevent young people getting in their cars to get jobs and so forth. But with the considerable increase in the volume of traffic, particularly on motorways, and the introduction of smart motorways, is it not ludicrous that a novice driver can pass their driving test and drive straight on to a motorway or in the dark, both of which they may never have done before?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I take my noble friend’s point, but I think noble Lords should be aware that on acquiring their first full licence a new driver is on probation for two years. During that time, they are subject to a limit of six penalty points for any driving offences, including any received when in the learning stage. If six or more points are received, the driver loses their full licence and must apply again for a provisional licence, re-entering the learning stage, so it is quite stringent.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that one reason why young people sometimes drive so badly—and why so many young people are convicted of driving without insurance—is that the cost of insurance is way outside the budget of most families, even when the child in that family has learnt to drive through a driving school? Is it not time that the Government and the insurance industry got together to talk about educating young drivers to drive better and to obtain more driving experience?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. He makes a very good point, and it is something which the Government could well look at.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who will be 70 later this year. Can my noble friend explain why it is that when you are 70, you have to reapply for your driving licence? Why pick on 70?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Can I say that I agree with my noble friend? At the age of 70, drivers must renew their entitlement and, at most, every three years after that. To renew the entitlement, they must make a legal declaration that they can meet the standards required to drive and confirm that they have listed any medical condition. That is the important point: whether there are any new medical conditions.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while I support reviewing the issue of young drivers, perhaps if the Minister is to do that, he will look at older drivers. As far as I know, there have not been any young drivers driving up motorways in the wrong direction.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Again, I would say that it is about, every three years after becoming 70, making a medical declaration to ensure that a person is of sound mind and able to continue driving on our roads.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, many Members of this House are grandparents with teenage grandchildren. I say as one of them that it is exceedingly alarming to know that a new driver who has just passed their test can take a number of youngsters out after a party or some other gathering or to a gathering. Hopefully, they are not breaking the law by drinking, but the behaviour in the car and the distraction is a genuinely serious issue and a major cause of many of the accidents about which we are concerned.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right; I cannot disagree with her. That is why the Government have commissioned the young driver research piece, the Driver 2020 project, and I hope that it will produce some suggestions as to how we may deal with this.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I want to apologise to the House. About a year ago, I got up and claimed that insurance and other details said that women drivers were substantially better drivers than men, and I wanted to argue their case. Sadly, within 24 hours of my asking that question, two female members of my family committed minor offences in motor cars. I therefore wish to ask my noble friend to try to justify my position by indicating that between young drivers—young people of both sexes—young women drivers are safer drivers for insurance purposes than young men.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on that. What I can say, on a very serious point, is that, overall, the figures for 2022 are that one fifth of all car collisions resulting in death or serious injury involved young drivers aged between 17 and 24. In 2022, 1,365 young car drivers were killed or seriously injured. Young male car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times as likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with all car drivers aged 25 or over.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major factors leading to the death or serious injury of those aged between 17 and 24 is a higher incidence of drink and drugs among that cohort, which is well known by the insurance industry? Does he recognise that we have the weakest rules relating to the amount that one can drink in the whole of Europe, apart from Malta? Is it not time that, when they come to undertake the review following the evidence being presented, the Government take action and require them to stay away from drinking in the way that they do at the moment?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I appreciate everything that he says.
BBC: Royal Charter
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultations they propose to have before the next renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter about news and current affairs programmes, including the future of Newsnight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the BBC has a duty under its royal charter to deliver impartial and accurate news and current affairs programmes. It decides independently how to deliver these services. The Government’s mid-term review focuses on impartiality, editorial standards and making sure that we have a BBC that represents all audiences. As required by the royal charter, His Majesty’s Government will consult the public on the BBC’s future as part of the charter renewal process.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the BBC faces an immediate crisis given the 34% real-terms cut in its income between 2010 and the present? This cut has had an adverse effect on some programmes, including “Newsnight”, the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme, which may have to be cut back in an election year when what we want is more scrutiny of politicians, not less. Is not there some truth in what Sir Max Hastings said: that there is a
“Tory war on the BBC”?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is important to begin with the fact that the BBC will benefit from more than £3.8 billion of licence fee income per year; that is a considerable amount of money. We froze the licence fee to help people with the cost of living but it is now rising in line with inflation. It is for the BBC to decide how it spends the money that it gets from the licence fee payer within the expectations that are clearly set out in the royal charter, in which its first public purpose is:
“To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them”.
It is important that the BBC does this.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, those of us who care passionately about the BBC are very worried about the direction of travel for BBC News. There have been decimating cuts to local radio, with long-standing presenters being made redundant in the most brutal of ways, the botched merger of world news and domestic news, and the cuts to flagship programmes. As the Minister said, is it not the BBC’s duty as a publicly funded broadcaster—particularly in an age of disinformation being so widespread—to invest heavily in a news service that we all rely on?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Although it is up to the BBC to decide how to deliver its services, the Government are clear that it must make sure that it continues to deliver its remit as set out in the royal charter and the agreement. The Government expect Ofcom, as the BBC’s regulator, to ensure that the BBC is held to account in the way it does so. We recognise the strength of feeling on the importance of news coverage, both nationally and locally. We have raised the concerns expressed in your Lordships’ House and another place about cuts to local news reporting services, but it is up to the BBC to decide how it delivers these services with the money that it gets.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, my final act in departing the BBC in 2000 was to negotiate a licence fee settlement for seven years at RPI plus 1.5%. That was with a Prime Minister who was crystal clear—to repeat a phrase from earlier—that he wanted to see a well-funded BBC in a rapidly expanding new digital universe. A quarter of a century later, we find the BBC with its finances brutalised and forced to pull back in every area of programming. Is it not time to restore the scope and scale of our most important national cultural institution?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The BBC is indeed a beacon that shines brightly around the world, reflecting British values and doing great credit to us as a nation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he did at the corporation. However, since he left, we have seen the number of people paying the licence fee falling. It has fallen by 1.7 million people over the last five years. Therefore, as well as ensuring that there is a fair settlement that gives the BBC the money that it needs and is fair to the people who pay the licence fee, we are looking at the funding model to ensure that the BBC is able to continue to get the income and to shine brightly as a beacon in an increasingly competitive media landscape.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has implied, the biggest threat to the BBC’s news and current affairs is from this Government. After the level of cuts that we have already heard about and last year’s two-year freeze on the licence fee, the Government did at least promise an inflationary increase in the licence fee for this year. Will the Minister now acknowledge that the Government have also broken that promise by giving an inflationary rise that is much lower than was anticipated, saving British households the equivalent of one egg per month while causing the BBC to have to have a further £90 million in cuts? How does that ensure that the BBC will continue to be the most trusted international provider of news across the world?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The increase has been calculated based on the annual rate of CPI inflation in September. That is the same measure that we use for the increases to the pension and to those in receipt of benefits. It ensures that the BBC can get income from the licence fee while being fair to those who pay it at a time when household budgets are also hard pressed. That money delivers the BBC more than £3.8 billion per year. It is for the BBC to decide how it carries out its obligations as set out in the royal charter.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very tempted to sling “Winterwatch” into this debate as it is being reduced because it is an expensive programme, which is a great shame. However, I will return to the issue that my noble friend Lord Dubs raised, because “Newsnight” is a much-respected and cherished institution. I would like to understand the need for the BBC to make changes in response to this funding challenge. Is the Minister satisfied with the BBC’s assurances in relation to the continuation of investigative journalism? Is he equally satisfied that now that privatisation is off the table and there is a clearer strategy for its future, Channel 4 can also continue to play its important informing and investigative role?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The royal charter sets out clear expectations for how the BBC impartially delivers news output. It is for the BBC to decide how it does this and through which programmes, however beloved they are in your Lordships’ House. I know that Members of your Lordships’ House have worked on “Newsnight” and many watch it and get their news that way. However, it is important that the BBC makes the decisions on how it adheres to the obligations set out in the royal charter and in its public purpose. It is also important that we do not have a Government who tell the national broadcaster how to report the news.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former news editor of “Newsnight” and a freelance TV producer. In the last year, commissions for factual programmes on all channels have been massively reduced. Over 70% of freelance documentary television producers are said to be without work. Does the Minister agree that Ofcom should investigate how the massive reduction in BBC budgets over the last decade has adversely affected the commissioning of documentaries on the BBC?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Ofcom has a role under the current royal charter to see how the BBC is meeting its obligations. It does this independently but will have heard the point made by the noble Viscount. More broadly, the Government are working on growing our creative industries so that there are many other avenues for brilliant documentary makers to add to the public understanding of current issues that are of interest to us all as globally engaged people, and many ways in which people can get their news and current affairs programming.
Lord Naseby (Con)
In his consultations, will my noble friend urgently take up the position on free-to-air, particularly regarding the test match series in India between England and India, which starts in about two weeks’ time? Does he realise, and does the BBC understand, how literally millions of people are sitting at home in this cold weather dying to see that cricket?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The listed events programme is a particular piece of work, but I will take my noble friend’s point back to Ministers, who, I am sure, hope for this to bring some joy and warmth into the lives of listeners and viewers.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government agree that multiple, daily, repeated quiz shows, which are almost continuous on the BBC now, are a good way to make sure that the licence remit is fulfilled?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The BBC has a licence remit and there are quotas for the number of hours of current affairs and news programming that it must show. What it fills its channels with outside of that is, rightly, a matter not for Ministers but for the BBC itself to decide.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, before any funding formula is introduced for the BBC, will the Minister commit to commissioning an independent, separate and dedicated impact assessment of that funding formula’s impact on the World Service, which needs a great deal of budgetary resilience built into it so that it can continue to respond flexibly to geopolitical situations around the world, especially through its language services?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government have made it clear—I am happy to say it again—that continued investment in the World Service is necessary to reflect the UK, its culture and its values to the rest of the world. Last March, we announced a £20 million uplift for the BBC World Service over the next two years, on top of the £94 million that it gets annually, to protect all 42 World Service language services, to support English language broadcasting and to counter disinformation. I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of doing that in the world situation we face.
Israel and Palestine
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, all our thoughts are very much with all the civilians who have been caught up in this horrific and continuing war. I certainly welcome the Minister’s efforts in securing United Nations Resolution 2720 and the Government’s commitment to seek and push for a sustained ceasefire that will deliver the humanitarian support that we wish for.
Andrew Mitchell in the other place referred to the ICJ case that was being pursued by South Africa and said that we would follow and respect its decision. But international humanitarian law is broader than that simple case. What are we doing to support the ICC to have adequate access, support and resources to properly investigate all breaches of international humanitarian law? Clearly, this is an issue that concerns all our global partners.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. Securing UN Security Council Resolution 2720 was of course important. Being directly involved, I can assure your Lordships that it was hard-graft negotiation until the very end. It is right that we need a ceasefire that is respected and sustainable. I pay tribute to my noble friend the Foreign Secretary for advocating this and I know that His Majesty’s Opposition share this view.
I can say no more about the ICJ case than that the ICJ is an institution that we support and that we await the outcome of the case. It is extremely important, for all concerned, that international humanitarian law is upheld. In all our interactions, we look to ensure—recently, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary engaged directly with senior representatives of the Israeli Government—that this point is made very clearly. Unlike Hamas, Israel is a state and it has obligations in this respect, which it recognises.
We are very supportive of the ICC as an institution. Earlier today, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and I met the prosecutor of the ICC, who is visiting, to discuss a raft of different issues about the institution and its various priorities.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words earlier. There have now been 101 days of this violence, and we have now seen the reports of 8,000 innocent Palestinian children being killed, and 150 UN workers also dying in the violence. The Israeli Government have said that their strikes have been targeted and proportionate, but analysis by the Financial Times before Christmas showed that the devastation of buildings in north Gaza is now more than it was in Dresden and Cologne, and is comparable to Hamburg. The Israeli forces have been using 2,000-pound bombs, which are four times the size that allies used in Mosul against ISIS, and have been using unguided munitions that date back to the Korean and Vietnam wars. The Government have said that they have monitoring aircraft in the region, which are being used to identify potential Hamas terrorists. That is to be welcomed, but are the Government also monitoring the use of the unguided so-called “dumb bombs” that have been raining down on Gaza, causing massive civilian damage? This will be evidence when it comes to any potential legal challenges, so are the Government collating the information?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will first share my own thoughts and those of the Government. I think I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House when I say that the loss of life we saw in the terrorist attacks on 7 October, and subsequently the loss of so many innocent lives in Gaza, is something we all deplore. That is why the Government have been working extensively. I and my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, literally during the course of the last month or so and during the Christmas period, have been working to ensure that we get the agreements in place to allow for humanitarian support to be provided to those most in need. No one needs to demonstrate how the situation in Gaza is being played out; we have seen it. There is acute need, particularly for the most vulnerable, and women and children in particular—70% of those who have been killed are women and children. I alluded to the importance of collating evidence earlier as well. There are international institutions looking at this, and Israel itself is a responsible state that has responsibilities under various agreements it has signed. Now is the time to focus on getting that sustainable ceasefire, so we can see that rebuilding, getting support in and also, let us not forget, getting the hostages out who have been held since 7 October.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, the war would end tomorrow if the hostages were released, but is it not time to call out the role of Iran in all of this? Although Iran is apparently keeping out of it, it is promoting Hamas to carry out its horrible acts, and pushing the Houthis into the direction they are taking. Without Iran, they would not be doing this. Is it not time we told them to stop?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we have done exactly that. While there may not be direct operational instruction from Iran to those militias that are being supported—not just those that have been supported in the Occupied Territories, but those further afield—I assure the noble Lord that we are making that case. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary recently spoke directly with the Foreign Minister of Iran, and that point was made very strongly.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. There are still over 130 hostages—men, women and children—being held in Gaza, and we should not forget them. Like other noble Lords in this House, we had the difficult opportunity to visit Kfar Aza down in the south of Israel last week. It was horrific. I was able to say the memorial prayer to the son of my friend, Netta Epstein, who died when he jumped on a grenade to save the life of his fiancée. But would my noble friend agree that there is some small light in the darkness? That is the Abraham Accords. I will be specific and mention the Kingdom of Bahrain; its understanding and support, not only in the fight against Hamas but also against the Houthis, is that small light.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first of all, on my noble friend’s point on hostages, I myself, along with the Foreign Secretary, have met with various members of the families of hostages currently being held. I assure noble Lords that we are doing our utmost with those who have influence to ensure their release as well as their safety at the current time. On the wider issue, when one looks at the situation currently, every glimmer and silver lining of this dark cloud is welcome, and I agree with my noble friend that the role of, and our partnership with, Gulf countries is particularly important. I also acknowledge fully the role that Bahrain has played in treading a very challenging line for itself, considering its position in the region and its domestic audiences, but equally standing up on principle, as we saw during the Manama Dialogue from His Highness the Crown Prince.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I have visited Auschwitz and seen something of the suffering of the Jewish people, and I appreciate the wonderful contribution the community is making to this country. But should we be silent and look the other way when every human rights organisation, the United Nations, Amnesty International and others point to gross abuse of human rights in Gaza? Should we look the other way when Benjamin Netanyahu compares the Palestinians with the Amaleks, who, according to the Bible, God ordered the Jews to slaughter—every man, woman, child and infant in the cradle—or when he says that the 25% of the Israeli population who are Palestinians have no rights, or when the Defence Minister states:
“We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, far from it. We are not looking the other way. We have a strong relationship with Israel and are making very forceful points to the Government of Israel about their responsibility. I have stood at this Dispatch Box a number of times, and the Israeli Government recognise their duty and obligation, aside from to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to the 21% to 22% of the population of the State of Israel who are non-Jewish, which includes many Christians and Muslims.
Civil Nuclear Road Map
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and wish him and his colleagues as happy a new year as possible, in the circumstances.
Nuclear energy is a key part of Britain’s future energy mix. We therefore support the Government’s commitment to new nuclear power. Nuclear power is a long-term project that requires cross-party consensus. I confirm that, as far as we are concerned, we have it. It is not new that we have a need for more homegrown, clean power in this country to cut energy bills and give us energy security, but the vulnerabilities of the current system have been deeply exposed by the energy bills crisis and the invasion of Ukraine, showing our reliance on external supply over the last two years.
Although this latest commitment is welcome, it is something of an irony that this road map emerged from Chris Skidmore’s independent review of net zero. Given the reason for his resignation being the lack of progress by the Government on energy and climate policy, particularly the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, do the Government not find it counterproductive to be taking one step forward and one step back at the same time?
Given this history, one would understand the nuclear industry being at least sceptical of the commitments in the Government’s Statement. What concrete steps are the Government taking in the short term to give the industry the confidence to work alongside them to deliver what the road map offers?
Furthermore, it is disappointing that, over the past 13 years, progress has stalled under this Government. They came into power in 2010, with 10 new sites having been identified by the previous Labour Government, yet they still have not managed to complete one nuclear power station. Even this newly promised road map is coming two years later than promised. That is two extra years when people will not feel the benefits. However long it takes for bills to fall as a result of the Government’s long overdue realisation that we need to generate more clean electricity, it will be two years later than it could have been. None the less, do the Government have a timeline for when that will happen? What assessment have they made of the expected impact of bills in the longer terms?
While of course it is a road map for 2050, the report also sets out a number of steps to be taken in the next 12 months. One of these is publishing a nuclear skills task force report alongside a defence nuclear enterprise Command Paper. Regarding the former, can the Minister give us a preview by telling the House what steps are already being taken by the Government to ensure that the UK retains critical skills in our nuclear sector? These jobs are highly skilled, well-paid, unionised and an asset that should be protected and treasured right through the supply chain, from apprenticeships to nuclear physicists.
Another step in the next 12 months is to finally reach an investment decision on Sizewell C, before the end of this Parliament. That commitment is also welcome, but for Hinkley Point C there is less certainty. Will the Minister update us on the timeline for Hinkley Point C, which was originally promised to be delivered by 2017, seven years ago? When will it start supplying power to households?
Finally, also said to be happening in the next year is completing the Great British Nuclear-led SMR technology selection process, thus announcing which technologies will be supported to achieve final investment decisions by 2029. There is much frustration in the industry, where attempts to site SMRs face delays and blockages. What steps will the Government take to unblock this and widen the development of SMRs and other advanced technologies?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his contribution. This road map is overdue but at least it is here. The question is: will timely financial investment and industry participation follow? The Liberal Democrats recognise that nuclear energy has always been part of our energy mix and will continue to be so as we transition away from fossil fuels.
The road map creates new risks and does little to provide energy security in the medium term. It sounds very glorious to meet one-quarter of our electricity demands by 2050, but will it deliver? It is a bit of a curate’s egg. On these Benches, we think that the Government are putting too many of our energy eggs in the “grand nuclear gigawatt energy infrastructure projects will always deliver” basket. Gigawatt nuclear energy projects have a long history of being announced with much fanfare, running into a blizzard of problems, becoming delayed, being delivered late and way over budget or not being delivered at all. The reality of nuclear projects in the UK is that Hinkley Point C is well over budget, now £33 billion, and late. Little progress has been made on Sizewell C, despite years of discussion and attempts to find ways to finance it.
The current proposed financing package charges already hard-pressed consumers up-front. Why will it be any different this time? This strategy requires the extension of four AGR nuclear power plants beyond their planned end of life and is subject to regulatory approval. When does the Minister expect the regulators to take these decisions? Mini reactors should be explored, but this should be as well as, not instead of, investing in renewable energy.
If planning and regulatory processes can be streamlined for nuclear, surely that can be done for offshore and onshore wind. We welcome the £300 million invested to free the UK from energy dependence on Russian advanced nuclear fuels. This is critical to our security. When does the Minister expect that the UK will be totally free from Russia? The Government must be able to give a true account of the costs of nuclear decommissioning.
The future is renewable. By 2030, technology improvements could slash today’s prices by one-quarter for a wind and half for solar. Other technologies, such as long-term storage, are also promising. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that 80% of the UK’s electricity is generated by renewables by 2030. The UK Government are aiming to decarbonise Great Britain’s electricity system fully by 2035, yet they have not provided a coherent strategy to achieve their goal. Investment in renewables and green technologies is essential. How do the Government plan to integrate the nuclear road map with their renewables ambitions? Given the scale of renewables that the Government are planning, inflexible nuclear base load systems are an ill fit. We need the flexibility provided by technologies such as interconnectors, storage and demand flexibility. Finally, when will we see a full and comprehensive integrated energy strategy to achieve net zero with a clear road map for renewables?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their introductions. On the comments from the noble Lord, Lennie, we of course welcome the support of the official Opposition. The noble Lord is right to say that these are essentially very long-term schemes. It is good to have a degree of cross-party consensus between the two main parties about the importance of nuclear to our future energy system and energy security.
I was not sure of the Lib Dem position. The noble Lord started off quite positively, saying that the Lib Dems welcome the role of nuclear, which of course is a change from their attitude during the nuclear financing Bill. I think I spotted in what the noble Lord was saying a hint of possible support, but we will have to wait for clarity on that. I also agree with his comments about renewables. It is not an either/or choice; we need to do both. We need to contribute to nuclear to support our baseload ambitions and, of course, continue our world-leading support for renewables and the future rollout of solar, offshore wind and all the other renewable technologies.
We have published three key documents which reinforce the UK’s position as a leader in the civil nuclear renaissance: first, a civil nuclear road map; secondly, a consultation on alternative routes to market; and, thirdly, a consultation on a proposed policy for siting new nuclear power stations. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, this really does set us on a path towards deploying up to 24 gigawatts of nuclear power in Britain by 2050, as part of the cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy system of the future. The road map very much establishes our vision for a vibrant British nuclear sector, which includes exploring building a major new power station and investing in advanced nuclear fuel production. It includes key enablers such as skills regulation, financing and effectively managing our nuclear legacy, and it sets out our long-term ambition for nuclear, providing high-level timelines and key decision points for a wide range of nuclear technologies over the next decade.
Finally, in recognition of our enhanced nuclear ambitions and the exciting potential offered by these new technologies, we are launching a public consultation on the proposed siting of new nuclear stations to help attract investment into the UK nuclear sector, and empowering developers to find suitable sites to enable a wide range of potential communities to benefit.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about freeing us from Russian nuclear fuel. I can confirm that it is the ambition of the Government to make sure that we are completely free of any components of Russian nuclear fuel by 2030.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, this road map is extremely welcome. However, in view of the fact that Hinkley Point C is now €15 billion over budget and many years late, and has almost bankrupted Électricité de France, with the Chinese partners reportedly stopping all further payments, does my noble friend think it wise to make a replica of the Hinkley Point project at Sizewell C and make it the spearhead of our nuclear programme, when smaller modular reactors and new technologies could be ready many years sooner and with much less burden on the taxpayer and the consumer?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, but the attraction of using a similar design is that many of the teething problems that have been undergone at Hinkley will hopefully be solved by the time we get to a decision on Sizewell. As I said, my noble friend makes a valid point and, again, it is not a question of either/or. We will continue the development of SMRs and AMRs in conjunction with large-scale nuclear.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement on their long-term nuclear policy. It is and it should be a critical component of our strategy for achieving net zero. However, I want constructively to raise some points. I worked at No. 10 in 2004 when the decision was made in principle to give the go-ahead to a new nuclear plant, which of course became Hinkley Point C. It has become a 25-year project. This is a genuine question: what lessons does the Minister think the UK can learn about how we manage these ambitious long-term infrastructure projects? Did we set out to fund it in the right way?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a number of good points. Clearly, there are some lessons to be learned from the process of Hinkley. We absolutely funded it in the right way, to go back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Howell, because the cost is being borne by EDF—and it is very kind of the French taxpayer to help us out in our nuclear programme. That is one of the reasons why we needed to look at alternative funding mechanisms for the Sizewell project. Of course, there are always lessons that can be learned in the regulatory process, the planning process and so on to try to bring these projects onstream a little sooner.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know of the great contribution made to the generation of nuclear power by the plants of Trawsfynydd, in the magnificent landscape of old Meirionnydd, and Wylfa on Ynys Môn, Môn Mam Cymru, or Anglesey. Can he give any encouragement today to people who wish to see further generation at the Trawsfynydd plant and the renewal of energy production at Wylfa? Does he know that those plants are far-flung in the north-west of Wales, where well-paid and skilled work is very rare? Can he give any encouragement at this stage?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. We recognise the substantial contributions that many communities in Wales have made over the years towards our nuclear policy in the UK and all the energy that we have received. Part of the consultation is a check on the siting of new nuclear plants, and community support, the existence of existing grid connections and so on will play important roles in future siting policies. The plants that he mentions score very well in that regard.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my nuclear interests as outlined in the register. I wholeheartedly welcome this report—and its earlier cousin, Towards Fusion Energy—particularly its emphasis on the cross-Whitehall endeavour to build the skilled workforce that the industry needs, which we all know will be a challenge. But back to Wales. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Jones said, can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that, in deciding sites for a further large-scale and small modular reactor, sufficient weight will be given to the levelling-up needs of north-west Wales, where the creation of a nuclear cluster, including gigawatt generation at Wylfa and both SMR and medical radioisotope production at Trawsfynydd, would indeed be transformative?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I know from many conversations that I have had with my noble friend her absolute commitment to pursuing the cause of Wales and the contribution that it can make to our nuclear renaissance. I give her the absolute reassurance, building on the reply that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, that the communities she has mentioned are very well placed to benefit from the new nuclear policies that we have announced. On her other point, my noble friend is correct to say that we need to build a skilled nuclear workforce to ensure that we have the people we need to power this future nuclear renaissance.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the road map makes frequent reference to high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. An indigenous project to build such a reactor, called U-Battery, was shelved due to a lack of government support. From whom do the Government propose to import such technology—which, by the way, was pioneered in Great Britain? When will the Government give sufficient support to our native industry, which was once pre-eminent in the world?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. We had one of the most pre-eminent nuclear industries, but that industry was left to die during a number of Governments, particularly starting with the Labour Government in 1997. Now we are on a different page. There are a whole host of different new technologies and processes coming forward in this space, and it is very much the job of Great British Nuclear to guide us in the process of selecting the best technologies to take forward.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, could I have reassurance from the Minister that, in his discussions about civil nuclear energy and the skills space, which has been mentioned several times before, he works very closely with the Ministry of Defence? At the very time when it has an increased demand for those types of skills, it is experiencing a shortage. I do not want to see us robbing Peter to pay Paul and still not having enough people who can do these jobs.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very valid point. We are looking forward to the upcoming findings of the nuclear skills taskforce, very ably chaired by Sir Simon Bollom. I am sure he will have some interesting comments and observations for us in taking forward the diverse needs of the workforce.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend in a position to tell us when there will be a move forward on the advanced small modular reactors? My understanding of the background is that Rolls-Royce has been ready for the best part of two years, and I understand the same is true for the competitors, which are supposed to be bidding in due course.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to reassure my noble friend. We have given Rolls-Royce £210 million to help in the development of the next phase of small modular reactors. There are a number of competing technologies. Great British Nuclear will be making progress on selecting the most appropriate technology in the months and years to come.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, on page 28 of the road map document, reference is made to the fact that additional sites will be needed beyond those already designated. In the light of what the Minister has just said about the process of consultation, when does he expect the Government to be in a position to make announcements as to which sites have been chosen?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There is quite a process to go through before then. We announced today the consultation on the national policy statement on siting, and we look forward to seeking the views of various interested parties and communities. There will be a further consultation once we have produced the national policy statement. There are a few steps to go through yet, but we want the process to be as transparent as possible, involving communities, residents and companies looking to take this work forward.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Stuart, do the Government understand the scale of the step-up needed to run a massive civil nuclear expansion alongside military expansion? There is the renewal of the deterrent and the additional responsibilities that the hugely welcome AUKUS agreement places on the UK, getting not simply the workforces ready but the interdependencies across the supply chain in the UK.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We very much understand that. I know the noble Lord, in his previous constituency interests, had a close connection with these matters. It is important that we take the two projects forward together. There are a lot of synergies in the experience and training required among very skilled workers, and we are determined to make sure that we have the appropriate skills here in the UK.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the road map and particularly the important focus on energy security. However, is not the wider context that many of the delays over the years have been as a result of the planning system and, therefore, that the Government need to look holistically at reform of strategic infrastructure planning, the compensation code and compulsory purchase? We have not had new legislation on compulsory purchase for over 40 years. Are those wider issues not just as important as access to private and public money?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. Separate processes for potential reforms to the planning system are going forward in government across a range of areas. Of course, it is important not just for the nuclear industry but in terms of grid connections, solar farms and all the other technologies coming forward. We need to find ways to do these things more quickly in this country and to make sure that people have appropriate opportunities to feed in their views, their objections, et cetera, but there is no reason why it should take literally decades to do some of these schemes.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, speaking as a native of Cumberland and a former Cumbria county councillor, does the Minister recognise that the most enthusiastic supporters of new nuclear power are to be found in west Cumberland and among the people who work at Sellafield and in its associated activities? Will he end the record of dither and delay—this is not a party-political point—about what is to happen in the nuclear industry? Does he recognise that at Sellafield and at Moorside there is a potential site for SMRs and the major new gigawatt nuclear power station, which was planned but then scrapped, although it is now apparently back under consideration?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord said. I absolutely accept the strong support of the communities in west Cumbria. I am not sure I agree that they are the most enthusiastic—I am sure our colleagues from Wales would disagree about that—but we can probably agree that they are as enthusiastic as many other communities. His party-political point about dither and delay was slightly unfair; much of it was started under a Government whom he was close supporter of. But perhaps we should put those matters aside and welcome the fact that both Front Benches now agree that we should take forward the new nuclear renaissance we have announced.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as co-chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, and to the fact that I have family members living on Anglesey. I say to my noble friend that they, too, share the view that the further development of nuclear power generation at Wylfa would be very welcome on Anglesey. Since Hitachi withdrew from the project at Wylfa, we have legislated for the regulated asset base model. With the example of Sizewell C, is there scope, and indeed action, to bring Hitachi back for a project at Wylfa again?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Wylfa is one of a number of excellently co-ordinated and positioned sites. I am not sure I want to give it any prominence beyond what it already has; there are a number of other potential sites. I am sure we will be very interested in having further discussions with Hitachi if it wants to progress those proposals.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the sole remaining nuclear power station in Scotland, at Torness, is nearing the end of its useful life. Are discussions taking place with the Scottish Government about the contribution that Scotland can make to the road map once the Torness power station has to be closed down?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right: Scotland has an excellent long tradition of support for nuclear power. Sadly, that is not shared by the existing Scottish Government. We would like to have discussions with them on this, but they seem to have set their face against nuclear power. Of course, some of the planning powers are devolved, so they are entitled to take that decision. However, speaking on behalf of their friends in England and Wales, I am sure we will be very happy to help them out with power in the future, with the many cross-border connections.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the Government’s launch of the consultation on amending the contract for difference bidding, which will potentially allow repowering of onshore wind to be included within it. Of course, that could potentially see us finally getting new onshore wind, which we have not seen for so long—the cheap, affordable facilities that can be spread around the country. That can be done very quickly, if the Government sort that process out. But as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said, we are talking about the suggestion of small modular reactors and the final investment decision in 2029. The Minister in the other place said that we would not be looking at them until well into the 2030s. Are the Government not simply being distracted from the solution to our energy issues and energy security, which is renewables?
Given that the last estimate I have seen for the nuclear clean-up of our old nuclear is a cost of £260 billion—an estimate made by Professor Stephen Thomas at the University of Greenwich—and that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has just been warning that ageing equipment at Sellafield means that there is a serious risk of a fire there, should we not clean up the old mess before we risk creating new ones? Will the Government make sure that there is no public cost in any future clean-up, if indeed we see any new nuclear?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yet again on this subject, the noble Baroness sets up a false choice between either nuclear or renewables. We are in favour of doing both; they both have a contribution to make to our diverse energy system. I bow to no one in my support of renewables. I think that wind and solar are great, and they are relatively cheap compared with fossil fuel sources; they will make a massive contribution to our energy supply in future. But they are intermittent, so it is important to have baseload capacity as well. You cannot run your whole energy system on wind and solar, however much the Greens would like to tell us you can. We need other sources as well—we need diversity, we need storage, and we need nuclear. We can do both.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement on the development of civil nuclear. I thank my noble friend for his answers so far but, given that it is a long-term project, two things must be kept under constant review and need constant effort. Have the Government made any further plans or given any thought as to how they will allocate finances between the large-scale nuclear projects, the SMRs and the AMRs? Bearing in mind that the research and technology will continue to change, we should not be tied too much to those that may not be so easy to achieve. What is the thinking about changing the weight given to the different sorts of nuclear? That is my first question.
In relation to long-term development, I pick up on the remarks of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches who talked about the large-scale structures involved and the kind of education and training we need for nuclear physicists, who are very highly trained. Physics is not a growing subject at university—many universities have closed their physics departments. That goes right down to the skilled technicians and technologies that we need to run any civil nuclear plant. I pick up on the comments of the noble Lord who mentioned the skills near Sellafield. We need to keep whatever skills we have, but there is a lot of work to be done at every level of education and training so that we have the workforce. Can the Minister comment on that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her suggestions. Of course, we need to pay close attention to the skills needs of the future, which is why we have set up the nuclear skills task force and are eagerly awaiting its report for us to take forward. My noble friend is also right that we need to keep a close eye on the costs of the different technologies. She is right to say that they are essentially long-term projects, but many of our energy infrastructure projects are long term—even offshore wind developments take a number of years to bring to fruition. Many of the projects that are coming on stream now were started a decade ago. Obviously, we want to try to bring down the timescale for those deployments, but nevertheless all those infrastructure projects contributing towards our long-term energy security of supply are essentially long term, and nuclear will be an important part of the mix.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, is the European pressurised reactor working reliably and safely anywhere in the world and, if so, where?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point—but, of course, these are matters for the regulators, which will keep a close eye on the safety, security and efficacy of the technology.
Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]
Monday 15th January 2024
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Act 2024 View all Automated Vehicles Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (11 Jan 2024)
Baroness Randerson
“Commencement of sections 5 and 6: review of road infrastructure(1) Before making regulations commencing sections 5 and 6 of this Act, the Secretary of State must undertake a review to identify how widespread issues with the condition of the roads might impact the safe operation of automated vehicles.(2) The review must also outline a strategy for improving road infrastructure in locations where this would put the safe operation of automated vehicles at risk and must make a recommendation as to whether a body should be established to design the improvements required.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to review the impact of road infrastructure and the potential impact of poor road quality on automated vehicles, before commencing and making authorisations under sections 5 and 6.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 23, 24, 54, 58 and 60 in this group. Amendment 23 calls on the Government to review the current state of road infrastructure. Amendment 24 asks for a similar review of the gaps in the telecommunications network. In both cases, those reviews should be done before commencing and making authorisations under Clauses 5 and 6. The reasoning behind this is simple: in the current state of our infrastructure, automated vehicles will simply not work.
First, let us look at the state of our highways. The current neglected, ramshackle state of our highways will not provide the reliable and consistent signals on which AVs will depend. Everything from road services to white lines to battered signage obscured by foliage will have to be transformed; there will have to be a revolution. I have a couple of thoughts. When I am in London, I stay in an area that was redeveloped with a modern road layout designed about 20 years ago. On the surface, it is ideal for automated vehicles: the roads are much wider and straighter than the average roads, and modern in concept. It would be potentially perfect except that, since it was created 20 years ago, no one has maintained it. When I go out of the door to cross the road, I cross at what I always regard as a notional zebra crossing: the stripes disappeared long ago. People in the area know that it is there, but it no longer has stripes. It is a big job to deal with that basic, regular wear and tear across the UK, because it is well beyond the resources of local government and it must be done on a similar timescale across local government boundaries, because automated vehicles will, in many cases, not be stopping at the local boundary.
I have a second thought, from experience. There has been a real revolution lately in the state of French roads; it has happened over about the last five to seven years. There has been widespread improvement in road surfaces, and traffic calming and safety measures have been widely introduced. It is an example that it can be done, and done quickly. I have no idea how much money France spent, but it obviously cost a great deal.
Another issue I want to raise in this respect is the issue of consistency in traffic signs. There are some problems with that. I will give the example of warning signs about fords. Back in 2016, the Government decided to deregulate the signs warning that there is a ford ahead, so the local authority no longer has to provide a sign of a specified size, design or siting.
I am aware of this issue, which I have raised here on several occasions, because of the tragic case of a young woman who drowned after failing to notice a small, badly sited warning sign on a dark country road in heavy rain. I know about this case because the coroner’s report drew attention to the need for the standardisation of signs. I have no idea whether ford sign deregulation was a one-off or whether other road signs were deregulated around the same time, but they will all have to be similar or within a range recognised by automated vehicles; otherwise, the whole thing will not work.
Therefore, there needs to be a major financial commitment. I recognise that automated vehicles will start with limited services in limited areas—probably city centres or motorways—but quite soon this country-wide revolution will be needed, and so will need to be financed. I acknowledge the importance of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asking where the money for this necessary revolution will come from, as it is a key strategic issue.
Similarly, Amendment 24 deals with current gaps in the telecommunications network, mainly, although not exclusively, in rural areas. When I am not in the House of Lords, I live a mile from the city centre of Cardiff, where there is a very poor mobile network. It would certainly not be strong, regular and reliable enough for automated vehicles. It is obviously dangerous to have gaps in the network—it might be personally dangerous to be driving through the countryside and find yourself marooned, but probably even more dangerous if there were a gap on major roads.
The Transport Select Committee in the other place took evidence on this, noting the “significance” of the current gaps, and the SMMT and others have made representations to us on the importance of this. The Government’s shared rural network project aims at 95% 4G coverage by at least one operator by 2025, but that leaves a 5% gap, which is worrying. In its report, the committee noted the key co-ordinating role of the Government in this, so I would be interested to hear what the Minister sees that co-ordinating role being, beyond this 95% aim.
Amendment 54, and Amendments 58 and 60, which are consequential, relate to personal delivery services, which we raised last week. As was noted then, we have hit a snag with the very tight scope of the Bill. Ironically, the one aspect of the Bill that is already up and running, with trials and regular services, is excluded from its scope. Those running these services are urging the Government to take action to support their businesses.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group, but I will start by talking about Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. If he wants to come in ahead of me and take precedence on it, he is welcome to do so. No? I thank him.
Last time, I talked about what I referred to as my Eastbourne letter. Since then, I have had a courteous non-reply. It seems to me that the Government are really lacking energy on this. They are not making speed; they are not forging ahead; they are not looking for opportunities in the way I would hope. What the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just said about delivery vehicles is typical of that, as is their inability to give me an idea of how a particular operation might be tackled by automated vehicles. What are they looking at? Where are they taking this industry? Are they a Government who are in the lead or just sitting back and waiting for things to happen? Currently, they are giving me the second impression. I hope I am wrong, but nothing I have heard in our previous session, today or in the letter has given me any comfort on that.
I very much support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. Let us pin down the Government on this matter and get them to produce a very useful strategy in six months’ time, so that we know what they intend to do and we get some energy and direction, rather than just the gentle, permissive Bill we have at the moment.
I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 44 and 45. The former looks forward to the point where automated vehicles become standard. In the early days, there will be a little fleet, and whenever it needs recharging, it will trundle back to its base. But that is not the way of operating any large-scale automated vehicle rollout; they have to be able to charge at ordinary, public charging points. If that is to be possible, we have to start thinking about the problem now. There is no point putting in a whole network of charging points, which we are making reasonable progress on, if none is usable by automated vehicles. We have to remember that, under our intentions, these charging points will be used by automated vehicles in five or 10 years hence. What does that look like, and what are we asking for? This comes back to the point I made last time about international standards: what do we expect to be available for an automated vehicle to hook into a roadside charging point? It does not carry a credit card with it—at least not in the ordinary way. These problems have to be addressed, solved and agreed internationally early and then incorporated into the rules and regulations we have for the charging point rollout. The point of my Amendment 44 is to give the Government power to specify how the charging point rollout should be made accessible to automated vehicles. They should commit to do at least that in the Bill, and then we can push them to do it speedily.
My second amendment is about using automated vehicles on railway track. There are two railways—particularly in relation to the Beeching railways—that we might want to revive. They will start off as routes that people are not used to using and where there is no existing train service—we are not trying to divert trains down them, by and large. Why do we not want to consider using the best available technology and run a service which runs every minute, rather than every hour, and that stops at the stations that the people in the vehicles want to stop? There are all sorts of other things that could come from using automated vehicles. From the point of view of automated vehicles, you are dealing with an environment where there are no people—but maybe the occasional cow. It is therefore a much less problematic environment to run an automated vehicle service than a public road. Where we are looking at reviving railways, or looking at a low-use branch service that we would like to make much better, we ought to look at automated vehicles as an alternative. The point of my Amendment 45 is to make sure that the Government have the power to do that, should they ever have the opportunity. I very much look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, proposing his amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, we have had two very interesting and productive contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord has, in essence, put his finger on a real point about whether the Bill is satisfactory. On our side of the House, we want to promote innovation: that is what the country needs. The country needs new ideas and new things that will work and will be commercially successful. An innovation policy is not just a matter of making regulations for something that somebody has already had an idea about that might work—which, I think, is the case with the classic automated vehicle—it is also about considering how the technology that we are on the threshold of developing can be applied more widely in a way that leads to great human benefit and advance. Our probing amendments—and they are very much probing amendments—are on the theme of how wide the scope of the Bill is and whether the issues have been thought through as a genuine innovation policy for the country.
My two amendments, Amendments 51 and 56, are really about what is in the scope of the Bill. Are we regulating for delivery robots or not and, if we are, have we thought about how this framework might be different from the automated vehicle framework and how it would be the same? This is a very serious issue, and you can think of lots of social benefits from a widespread rollout of delivery robots. On Amendment 51, have we thought about these questions in terms of public transport, as against the automated car? What special arrangements do we have to make for public transport, if any, and where? These are speculative amendments, but I think they are raising fundamental points about whether this Bill is going to be a great leap forward for us or not.
The other aspect which we are concerned about is the infrastructure element. What changes in infrastructure will be necessary? Have the Government done work on that? Have they thought about where roads need to be redesigned and how the sensing systems of artificial intelligence will work on our infrastructure? I can see quite a lot of potential costs in this, but I do not want the cost to be a barrier to innovation. I want the Government to have thought in advance about how you deal with the question of what changes in infrastructure are necessary. I do not want a repeat, if I can say it plainly, of what I think has been the pretty chaotic rollout of charging points for battery vehicles. We need a plan. Is the Bill giving us a plan or a road map for these developments? With those comments, I commend our amendments and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, forgive me for intervening before the Minister responds, but the word “rural” in Amendments 51 and Amendment 61 attracted my attention, as you might expect. As I said in my Second Reading speech—and following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has just been talking about, the Government have to make a plan, because the SDVs could make a huge difference to rural life, if the rules allow it. I do not expect Uber 2—or whatever you want to call a fleet of for-hire self-drive vehicles—to make an impact. It is not going to come into the countryside, in the same way as Uber 1 has not come into the countryside. It is not economically viable for any fleet of hire vehicles to do so. As I see it, for rural purposes, it is most likely going to be a solution whereby, if it is a big market town, there may be a car available as a self-drive vehicle or, if it is a small rural village, it will probably be a private vehicle either for hire or for free by use of the local community and all its different members.
We will need the Government to enable it to happen. That is really the point that everyone has been making: the Government have to think about it. Can a private citizen allow their SDV to be used by others, either for hire or for free? How easy will it be for private citizens to rent out an SDV locally? As I understand it, the insurance is likely to be covered by the motor manufacturer, but would that insurance cover the situation that I am describing, where an SDV will have a multi-purpose role in a small rural village? I hope that the Government will think about these things.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a few brief points on what we have discussed today and what I have read in the Bill previously. It is seen as a very legally descriptive Bill. Some of the challenges and questions that we are raising in our conversations are around use cases, applications and geography, including how this will shape the future in terms of not just mobility but society. These are quite large concepts for us.
My recommendation to the Minister and the Government is that different phases and parts of the Bill addressing specific use cases and their applications may evolve as we go forward, be they about where automated vehicles may be used in railways, rural life, emergencies or the as yet innovative opportunity for such vehicles in commercial applications. In a previous debate on the Bill, I spoke about how we should potentially view automated vehicles as the equivalent of a smartphone, as compared with the mobile phones that we had originally. A smartphone is no longer just a phone; it enables us to do so many other things. These vehicles have the opportunity to become so many other things that we probably cannot define them to the nth degree yet; it is therefore difficult for the Bill to work against that. However, if we can start to scope out additional use cases and see how they would affect the legislation, that may be the way to go.
Let me make a point or two about the points that have been made, for example about the challenges around road signage and automated vehicles. We are already stepping towards an environment where sensors and smart vehicles acknowledge the changes that happen on the road and the speeds on the road around us. This will be another phase of that evolution. Funding for that is a good question; we should discuss in more detail where we will look at providers, digital technology suppliers and the other opportunities that they will provide from that kind of implementation of technology.
We should look at making sure that charging points are integral and standard for usage with automated vehicles as well. I helped the then Mayor of London set up the London electric vehicle partnership in 2008, when we first looked at electric vehicles. We knew that there would be a challenge around standards and charging but we did not allow those challenges to hold us back. We need to think about agile development, failing fast, and enabling trialling and testing to continue so that we do not slow things down as we look for overall international agreement on some of these things. It is a challenge to make sure that we get momentum, which I think we are all looking for.
Perhaps we can identify the use cases that we are highlighting more specifically, then look at how the Bill can address them in its future versions.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief. It has been an interesting debate on this group of amendments because we have started talking about infrastructure separately from what goes on it. That is an important issue to look at because, whether in terms of the comments that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, making at Second Reading about the benefits of living in the countryside or the comments of other noble Lords who have mentioned the need for proper infrastructure, the key to this—it was in the press at the weekend, I think—is that the infrastructure mapping must be accurate. Who is going to do it?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggesting putting it on an old railway line. The old railway line is on the maps already, but can you drive down it safely? Is it a guided bus rail, which is another form of getting around? Not only do all these things need to be kept up to date but somebody needs to be responsible for ensuring that they are up to date and for what happens if they are not. I am sure that this is all on Minister’s mind for when he responds, but there is further work to be done here.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the many contributions to this interesting debate. I will try to address the issues that have been raised.
These amendments concern the integration of self-driving vehicles into the existing transport system, particularly the extent to which each may need to adapt to accommodate the other. I begin by clarifying a key point. Self-driving vehicles must be capable of operating safely and legally using the infrastructure as it exists today. There can be no expectation on the part of developers that our roads will change in some way to accommodate their vehicles. Nor do we consider such changes to be necessary for safe deployment.
Vehicles will need to be able to cope safely with issues such as wear and tear, road closures and variation in signage that are found across our road network. This also extends to digital infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles can make use of services such as data connectivity, GPS and digitised traffic regulation orders, but like humans they will need to be able to maintain safety in the event that these services are unavailable. Those which cannot do this would not be authorised.
Government and local authorities have duties to manage and maintain their road networks for the benefit of all users. Over time, local authorities may choose to adapt their networks to leverage the wider benefits from self-driving vehicles. This might include, for example, investing in information systems that can communicate directly with vehicles. However, this is a long-term view. Considering that we are still in the early stages of the deployment of this new technology, it would be premature to anticipate what such changes could look like. Our guiding principle remains that self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way around.
This brings me to Amendments 37 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. These probe our plans for adapting the road network to accommodate self-driving vehicles, including how this will be funded. For the reasons that I have set out, the deployment of self-driving vehicles does not require any adaptations of our physical or digital infrastructure. This means that there are no associated costs and that the noble Lord’s amendments are therefore unnecessary. It means that the infrastructure reviews proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Amendments 23 and 24, are also unnecessary, along with consequential Amendments 58 and 60. However, in relation to the noble Baroness’s comments on the condition of the road network, I note that the Government have recently announced the biggest-ever funding uplift for local road improvements, with £8.3 billion of funding to resurface over 5,000 miles of roads across England.
Amendments 51 and 61 call for strategies to be published on the application of self- driving vehicles in rural areas. The Government have already published their comprehensive vision for the future of self-driving technology in the UK, Connected & Automated Mobility 2025. As part of that vision, the policy paper considers the opportunities for self-driving technology to improve public transport and to enhance mobility in rural areas. Furthermore, in October last year, we published the Future of Transport rural innovation guidance, providing local authorities with advice and support to embrace technologies such as self-driving vehicles in rural areas. To publish further strategies would risk duplicating this existing work. On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about public transport, our investment in trials such as CAVForth in Scotland and Harlander in Belfast demonstrates clearly that our commitment extends well beyond private use of self-driving vehicles.
On Amendment 48, Clause 47(4)(b) specifically states that the user-in-charge immunity does not extend to the qualifications of the driver. The requirement to hold a valid driving licence therefore continues to apply to the user-in-charge, even while the self-driving feature is active. This is necessary as they may be required to resume control of the vehicle in response to a transition demand.
In a no-user-in-charge vehicle, there is never a requirement for a qualified person to assume control. While a no-user-in-charge feature is active, any person in the vehicle is simply considered a passenger and will not need to hold a driving licence.
Driving licence categories will continue to apply to self-driving vehicles as they do to conventional ones—for example, by weight and number of seats. It would be premature to consider new categories of driving licence at this stage, but it would be possible in the future under the Road Traffic Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, feels that this clarifies the position sufficiently.
Amendment 44 concerns the interaction between self-driving vehicles and ChargePoint infrastructure. Self-driving vehicles are not yet on our roads and the technology for automated charging is still very much in its infancy. However, we will continue to monitor the future direction of the technology. Should developments demonstrate a need for regulation in this space, we will consider next steps on consultation. The Government are focusing our current intervention on areas where an accelerated pace of rollout is most needed, such as high-powered chargers on the strategic road network and for local street charging.
Amendments 54 and 56 refer to delivery robot vehicles and devices. It is the Government’s view that the Bill already contains the necessary legislation to regulate the safety of all self-driving road vehicles. In line with Clause 94, any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted to be used on the road is already within the scope of the Bill.
As I have said previously, the definition of a “road” extends beyond the carriageway itself. For example, it includes the pavement. Delivery robots and devices that meet these criteria would therefore be in scope. However, to pass the self-driving test, they must drive legally and comply with all relevant regulations. This includes construction and use regulations, and restrictions on pavement use by motor vehicles. Any future changes to regulations on pavement use would need to be balanced with the need to maintain safety and accessibility for other road users. All in-scope vehicles will be subject to the monitoring, assessment and reporting requirements set out in Clause 38. This makes additional reporting requirements unnecessary.
I know that my noble friend Lord Lucas, who tabled Amendment 45, is a long-standing advocate for this particular use case. Although it sits outside the regulatory framework that we are proposing, which is concerned only with roads and other public places, I reassure him of our interest in its potential. We are one of the first countries to explore the business case for self-driving mass transit on segregated routes, with 10 feasibility studies under way backed by £1.5 million in government funding. We are already looking at how regulatory requirements could be overseen for segregated routes. Work is under way with the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to establish a firm footing for the kind of deployment that my noble friend is interested in. While the technical regulations being developed in support of the Bill may be a useful guide for these “off-road” applications, the frameworks are distinct.
I hope, as a result of what I have said, that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, sees fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. This has been a good debate, with some important points raised. It is a good example of us trying to think positively, outside the box, about the important issues that this new technology will raise for us all. I just pick one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which is the potential to benefit rural areas. I fear that they will probably be the last areas to benefit, unless there is a proper plan. That is the sort of thing we should rightly be doing here at this stage of the Bill. However, having listened carefully to the Minister, I will look very carefully at Hansard, because he said some interesting but worrying things.
Baroness Randerson
“Commencement of sections 5 and 6: review of the MOT regime(1) Before making regulations commencing sections 5 and 6 of this Act, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of whether the MOT regime is fit for purpose in light of the changes to the regulation of automated vehicles introduced by this Act.(2) The review must in particular assess whether an MOT adequately covers the testing of both mechanical and software components of an automated vehicle.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to review the current MOT regime before commencing and making authorisations under sections 5 and 6.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 25, 55E and 59 in this group. Amendments 25 and 59 are associated. They make a simple and obvious point about thinking more outside the box and trying to predict the future.
Consequent on the revolution in vehicle operation, there will, of course, be a need for the modernisation of MoTs to include much more emphasis on software. It will be essential for owners and operators to download updates on a regular basis. If this is not done, the vehicle will either progressively or suddenly become less safe, or probably cease to operate. Last week, I tested the issue of what happens when someone writes software and then the company goes bust, and who is then responsible for carrying on with the software.
There is a major issue here about the modernisation of MoTs. Compared with internal combustion engine vehicles, there will be far less danger of automated vehicles having mechanical failures or deterioration, because there are far fewer mechanical parts to go wrong or to wear out, so the whole emphasis of the MoT and other tests will change and it stands to reason that it is essential to train people with the IT skills required to deal with that change. That is not currently happening in sufficient numbers. The vacancy rate in jobs of this nature within this industry is 7%—twice the average for the sector as a whole.
Amendment 55E asks the Government to develop a workforce strategy to ensure that we have a workforce with the right skills. There is bound to be concern, as automated vehicles become more common and as they replace services that currently operate with human drivers, that automated buses, taxis and delivery vehicles are taking away existing jobs. It is therefore very important that the Government maximise the opportunities for new jobs, too. The Government’s own research estimates that 38,000 new jobs can be provided as a result of this technology and, indeed, updating and maintaining IT. That is possibly an underestimate, but the Government need to prepare now for the highly skilled and well-paid jobs that will potentially come as a result of this technology.
The point of my amendments is simply to probe the Government’s plans to make sure that they are fully prepared and are looking at reviewing the MoT, because many modern cars are halfway there at the moment and need to have that annual look at whether their IT and software are up to date and fully functioning. We also need to have the people to make sure that that can be done. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 37A. Before I start, I will comment on the noble Baroness’s introduction to her Amendment 25. What she proposes is extremely important. My amendment seeks to go a bit further, rightly or wrongly.
Given the issues we have talked about during the passage of this Bill so far, the issue of changes in technology is really quite serious. Obviously, we do not understand many of them, but we hope that the Government do, and I am sure that they do. I am quite keen to probe the idea of an independent body to keep an eye on safety, health and safety at work and other issues which come up in the course of this Bill. I think the noble Baroness’s Amendment 25 is a good start, but it is a wish to see the Government marking their own homework. That is better than not having any marking at all, but I think there is a long way to go before we can get anything that we can totally trust about what is going on—without getting into the Post Office, Horizon and things like that.
I asked to have a discussion with the Office of Rail and Road, as it has been called for the best part of 10 years. It is an independent body with statutory functions to supervise and comment on the safety and performance of rail and, more recently, it has had a similar but smaller role in respect of roads, in particular monitoring the performance of National Highways. I think most people believe that it performs its regulatory function pretty well. There are many other regulators that we are not going to raise today, but they all have one thing in common: they are all independent of government. Now I know that Ministers can sack the chair of these organisations and do things, but the independence is there.
They have regulatory powers as well. I shall quote one example of what the ORR has been doing on the motorway network. It is quite complicated, but it started off with the Department for Transport asking the ORR to carry out an evidence stocktake to gather the facts on the safety of smart motorways. Then the Secretary of State increased that and said that he wanted some quality assurance of the data and the evidence underpinning the conclusions arrived at with regard to lane rentals. This is the Government asking an independent regulator for its opinion. I think it is really good that the Government have done this. There were then a number of discussions with the House of Commons Transport Committee and the ORR provided its first report, Quality Assurance of All Lane Running Motorway Data. National Highways then used this data to assess smart motorway safety and demonstrate to stakeholders, the public and the Government that the conclusions drawn from the analysis were appropriate and robust.
The Transport Committee in the House of Commons has done quite a lot of work on it. Its conclusion in a report published in December 2023, in a second assessment, was that the ORR’s annual independent reporting
“has provided better transparency in relation to safety on the strategic road network and smart motorways and helped to drive performance improvements”—
which the report then discusses.
Noble Lords will know of the fuss about smart motorways, with lots of debates about their safety and so on. It is interesting that the Transport Committee concluded that, over a number of years, Governments, National Highways and its predecessors had
“underestimated the scale of safety measures needed effectively and reliably to mitigate the risks associated with the permanent removal of the hard shoulder”
from these motorways, and had
“failed to deliver safety improvements … in a timely fashion”.
I do not want to criticise the Government for doing this; they were trying to save money and increase the amount of traffic on the motorway, et cetera. My point is that here were the Government, rightly, asking an independent regulator for its opinion, and then passing it to the Transport Committee, which concluded:
“The Department should make the introduction of changes to the design and operation of the Strategic Road Network depend on a formal health and safety assessment by the Office of Rail and Road”.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will look at Amendment 25, in the context not only of this Bill but of whether the MoT test needs updating anyway in these respects. More and more aspects of automation are coming into cars. We heard last time how cars can be frightened of bags blowing in the road or reluctant to change lanes when asked as a result of automated features; doubtless, more will come in. Such features are having a noticeable effect on the way that a car behaves on the road. We ought to test to make sure that they are operating properly. I do not see any trace of that in the MoT as it is. We should be aware of the need to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group, a lot of which have what I call a “motherhood” characteristic. In other words, they are self-evidently sensible things to do; the debate is whether these ideas are properly caught by the language or whether, indeed, they need to be on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I would like the Minister to try to answer in two ways: first, whether he essentially disagrees with the concept in the amendment and, secondly, if he agrees with it, why we should not have it in the Bill.
I start with Amendment 25; I believe Amendment 59 is consequential to it. This is an entirely reasonable amendment. It is difficult to believe that the standards expected and the areas considered will be identical—or even largely identical—to the present MoT regime, and therefore I think a review is entirely sensible.
Similarly, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has made a good point in Amendment 37A—and, as I read it, Amendment 57A is consequential—that the Office of Rail and Road could make a singular contribution. The ORR’s problem is that it has the responsibilities of a railway inspectorate on the one hand and, potentially, of a road inspectorate with particular reference to this area. The problem, particularly on the railways, is that there is often not enough business to keep such teams properly employed. The skills required are very similar. It could be a merger of two teams or learning from each other—there are all sorts of things that one can think of when it comes to drawing the rail and road people into the way that the various investigatory and rule-setting powers would work. As I said, Amendment 57A is consequential.
My noble friend Lord Liddle has three amendments in this group. I shall speak particularly to Amendments 40 and 41. I did not find these the easiest to read because the whole problem of taking a statement and then adapting it to a new meaning is not without its hazards. I will quote the appropriate subsections from Clause 61. Subsection (1) says:
“The main purpose of the role of inspector is that of identifying, improving understanding of, and reducing the risks of harm arising from the use of authorised automated vehicles on roads in Great Britain”.
That is then conditioned by subsection (2):
“It is no part of that purpose to establish blame or liability on the part of any person in relation to a particular incident”.
That is a no-fault environment in which many people would agree you get a better result out of the inspection of events. However, we feel that we need to take that further. Amendment 40 would add, at the end of the wording in subsection (2),
“unless the investigation concludes that a failure in the technology of an automated vehicle is at fault”.
That would give it a specific requirement to bring out and invite the inspector to say, “It was the technology that caused this accident”. We think it important that they are able to specify that the technology was at fault.
Clause 68(1) says:
“An inspector must report any findings of an investigation to the Secretary of State”.
In a sense, that implies that this is pretty routine stuff and it only needs to go to the Secretary of State. We believe that because of the complexity, and the obvious desire of the people who have looked at this at some length that parliamentarians should be involved with the evolution of this, there should be a caveat to that. Amendment 41 proposes to add
“who must lay this report before Parliament should the investigation find a technological failure of an automated vehicle to be the cause, or one of the causes, of an incident”.
So the situation would be that the Secretary of State received all reports where the technology had not been found at fault, but where the technology had been found at fault, that would be reported to Parliament.
In Amendment 55E, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has asked for a workforce strategy. This is classic. The whole of the UK, frankly, calls for a workforce strategy, and over and over again you see decisions being made without regard to the workforce capability. There is a good case for this particular role, but the Government should grasp the proper use of workforce strategies in managing our society. We think of the problems of doing something as being about physical things, such as factories, but over and over again it is the limitation of skills. Any activity is as much about the skill of the people working with it—it is particularly interesting to look at this in the military—as it is about the kit they are using to deliver it. We should be thinking more and more in these terms. I do not know whether this is one of the launch areas, but bringing it up in the Bill was a good thing.
Finally, Amendment 56A from my noble friend Lord Liddle, as stated in the explanatory statement, is
“to probe the difference between ‘automated,’ ‘autonomous,’ ‘autonomously’ and ‘self-driving’”.
There is an unwritten rule that, when writing standards, you never use synonyms. The moment you use synonyms you ask people to start trying to define the difference. If you have a good, simple concept, it should have one label in any regulation. It makes the writing very boring, because there is so much repetition, but it makes it unambiguous. I am afraid that this document is somewhat ambiguous because of the various terms that it uses for the same concept.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in this group concern the day-to-day operation of the regulatory framework.
Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, refers specifically to incidents in which the technology of a self-driving vehicle is at fault. In such a situation, it would be for the in-use regulatory scheme to determine whether regulatory sanctions were appropriate. Criminal penalties would also apply if the authorised self-driving entity had failed to disclose relevant safety information. Separately, a statutory inspector may also conduct an independent safety investigation. The statutory inspector is then responsible for publicly reporting on safety lessons and making recommendations for improvement. These reports would include the failure in vehicle technology and any other causation factors.
The amendment therefore confuses the role of a statutory inspector with that of the in-use regulatory scheme and the police. In doing so, it inadvertently contravenes a long-standing fundamental principle in incident investigation: learning, not blaming. In developing the inspector role, we have been guided by international standards, best practice and precedent, including that established by our own exceptional existing transport accident investigation branches. All three of these branches conduct no-blame investigations.
I have similar concerns that his Amendment 41 also risks departing from established precedent in safety investigation. An inspector must be able to report neutrally and factually without being influenced, directly or indirectly, by any person or organisation. Historically, this has extended even to Parliament. Indeed, none of the reports published by the existing air, maritime, and rail accident investigation branches are required to be laid before Parliament. However, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to make all the inspector’s reports, findings and associated recommendations publicly available on GOV.UK, as is the case for the existing branches.
I confirm that specific testing for self-driving vehicles will be considered for inclusion in the MoT. Naturally, this will need to be an evolutionary process, developed in line with the introduction of the technology. The MoT will continue to play an important role in ensuring the ongoing maintenance and roadworthiness of the vehicle. However, we will not depend on it to ensure that self-driving vehicles drive safely. Authorisation places the obligation on the authorised self-driving entity to ensure that its vehicles continue to satisfy the self-driving test. The Bill grants powers to set requirements, secure information and issue sanctions as necessary to ensure that this is done. The review proposed in Amendments 25 and 59 could therefore unnecessarily delay the implementation of Bill.
On the noble Baroness’s specific question, in the event of an authorised self-driving entity ceasing trading, safety must be the priority. It would not be right for a vehicle to drive itself without someone taking responsibility for how it behaves. Given that this market is still emerging, there is much that we do not know about future ownership models and what consumer protections will therefore be needed. However, I can confirm that the important issue of the handling of ASDEs’ insolvency will be considered, following consultation, as part of establishing financial and good-repute requirements for authorisation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to meet me, one or two colleagues and perhaps the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, so that we can understand a little more what he has said. I am very interested in his response, but it would be very helpful if we could have a meeting before Report.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I want to pick out a couple of things. One is about the urgency of the reform of the MoT, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which stands in a bit of contrast to the Minister’s point. I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that there is a need to reform the MoT, but I believe that he used the word “evolutionary”. Evolution can move very slowly. One point that has come across from noble Lords across the Committee is that current vehicles are part of the way there and have a whole system of software that needs attention in an MoT. I hope that the Minister will take away the fact that those changes need to be worked on with some urgency and that we need changes to the MoT in the near future.
Very good points have been made about the need for skills strategies, and to make the best of innovation by having the skills that will be needed. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part and withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Statement of accessibility principles(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a statement of the principles that they propose to apply in assessing, for the purposes of this Part, whether an automated vehicle meets the required level of accessibility.(2) The principles must make provision for the accessibility of—(a) physical features and structures of the automated vehicle,(b) computer and software systems used in the automated vehicle, and(c) where relevant, booking platforms and other interactive digital services and systems used prior to, during and after using an automated vehicle, including through underpinning such services and systems with mechanisms to allow human intervention if required.(3) In preparing the statement under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult such persons they consider appropriate, in particular disabled people.(4) The statement under subsection (1) should include consideration of the accessibility of infrastructure with which automated vehicles must interact, such as pavements, kerbs, drop off and parking points.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on this group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interest as an adviser to Boston Ltd. I shall speak to Amendment 26A, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for co-signing. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, which I shall not trespass on at this time.
Automated vehicles are either accessible, or they should not be pursued. They have such potential to enable mobility through technology, transforming people’s lives, be they older people, disabled people or any member of our society. If accessibility is not the golden thread that runs through all their development and deployment, this project should not proceed any further.
We see in Clause 87 a couple of mentions of disabled people and older people. It is good to see that, but Clause 87 is not specific or sufficient. Without greater detail in the Bill, inevitably we will have potentially many elements of the user experience which simply will not be accessible, and there is precious little point in having 70% of the end-to-end experience accessible if 30% is not. That needs to run through all elements: not just the AV itself but everything involved in that user experience of engaging with an automated vehicle. That is why my Amendment 26A proposes a statement of accessibility principles which will run through and set out in the Bill, in detail, what is required to enable an accessible experience for all users.
As has been said, the vehicle itself, the physical features, must be accessible. All onboard systems must be accessible, but also the booking platforms and all the physical infrastructure that the AV needs to interact with, such as kerbs and drop-off points, must be accessible; otherwise, the experience will be unable to be seen as accessible. It can be rendered useless if just one of those elements is not accessible. We need to see a statement of accessibility principles set out in the Bill; it needs to be understood as an end-to-end accessible experience for users; and we need to see disabled people involved in the development and deployment of this whole AV enterprise. I believe that by having all these elements in the Bill, we will have much greater opportunity to enable an accessible experience for all.
It is clear that we need to have backstops. If the onboard system fails, if the booking system fails, if any element fails, by technical glitch or for want of accessibility, there needs to be a human in the loop, the potential for human intervention, so that a disabled person, an older person or, indeed, any person is not left, potentially, in a vehicle with a failed onboard system and no back-up, both for safety but also just for knowing where you are—the vital information to enable you to have an accessible experience in that AV.
We have spent many decades putting right inaccessible buildings, infrastructure and public realm that was built and conceived of long before accessibility, inclusion and inclusive by design were even considered, let alone deployed. That is still a work in progress, but we need to be absolutely certain that we are not potentially building new systems, vehicles and infrastructure that are inaccessible by design. We cannot start creating new steps—new barriers to access—in cyberspace and across the whole AV experience. We will get this right if we see it as a user experience, end-to-end, every beat point with a golden thread of accessibility ensuring that AVs can be enabling, emancipating and a positive experience for all users. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my past interest as a member of the Select Committee on the Equality Act and its impact on disabled people, which included assessing PSV transport regulations for safe and effective travel for disabled people. Once again, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and to have been able to sign his Amendment 26A. I have three amendments in this group, also signed by my noble friend Lady Randerson.
I want to pick up the point the noble Lord made when he talked about not just disabled people, but the elderly and frail in our society. If you include all of those, we are talking about more than one in four of the population. This is not something that affects a few people; it is a major, really important part of automated vehicles, increasingly so as we become an elderly society, because it is less likely that people will be able to make their own journeys. One reason why so many disabled people cannot travel around is because they do not have access to the right vehicles.
On this group, I want to refer to the Minister’s response at Second Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I raised accessibility just not being visible in this Bill, neither generally nor in Clause 83. From the Dispatch Box, the Minister said:
“The granting of self-driving authorisations will be subject to the public sector equality duty, and the Government intend to make equality impact assessments part of the authorisation process”.—[Official Report, 28/11/23; col. 1070.]
The granting of self-driving authorisations being issued by a regulatory body would mean that the grantee has to follow the PSED, providing that it is supervised by a state regulatory body and providing a public service, so he is no doubt correct that PSVs would be able to follow it. I would hope that the provision of public sector AVs would fall within scope but, as we have discussed, there are many other parties to the running of an AV, some of which may not appear to be party to the PSED or realise that they are required to obey it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to agree with everything they said. In offering support to all the amendments in this group, I will make a couple of additional points.
First, to follow on from debates on previous groups today, it is obvious that, given the general state of our roads and infrastructure, if we are to see automated vehicles operating in the foreseeable future, that will be in only very limited and controlled circumstances—probably in newly constructed areas—and they are likely to be public transport. A great deal of our debates on this Bill have focused on private individuals having their own cars whizzing around, but public transport systems are most likely to be the first affected. We need to see the provision of access by design included as part of that.
Secondly, it deserves to be noted that, for the past year, the Transport Committee has been holding hearings on the accessibility of what we have now. These have exposed insufficient accessibility right across the transport sector, particularly in the need to update regulations to accommodate modern travel methods and equipment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we are starting from scratch and could get it right from the beginning, so we should absolutely aim to do so. She spoke about relying on the public sector equality duty when it is so clearly failing; we have not heard the final conclusions of the Transport Committee, but a report out last month from the disabled people’s organisation Transport for All titled Are We There Yet?—to spoil the ending, the answer is definitely “No”—surveyed more than 500 disabled people in England on the journeys they had made in 2021 and 2022.
The report found that disabled people make far fewer journeys than non-disabled people—an average of 5.84 a week, which is one-third of the national average across the community. Those disabled people said they would like to make twice as many journeys every week, but lack of accessibility was preventing them doing so and being able to fully participate in our society, in the way that they would like. Finally, the report noted that nearly half of the respondents
“thought that the accessibility of transport and streets”
would worsen in the next 10 years, while only 28% thought it would improve. Your Lordships’ House has a duty and an opportunity to show that it is possible to make things better instead of letting them continue to deteriorate.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as I have been involved in accessibility to modern taxis and other public transport over many years. I entirely agree with most of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. However, with their amendments, I am not sure that we are heading in the right direction. It is clear from Clause 87 that those clauses intending to make the vehicle more accessible are heading in the right direction, but the noble Baroness believes they do not go far enough.
I am not sure that adding an extra automated vehicle accessibility standards panel, as in Amendment 53, would do anything other than delay everything in practice. By the time that such a panel is formed and educated to the standard of familiarity that we all hold with the Bill—or most of us do—I am not sure that it would do anything but delay the whole Bill, when we are already behind others. Although I very much hope that we could be at the forefront both of the existence of automated vehicles and of accessibility, we are of course two years behind other countries in Europe. We have got to catch up. I hope that we can alter Clause 87 to achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I would like to see, rather than add a completely new panel on top.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I very gently challenge the noble Lord on his contribution. The problem is that, if there is no chance to rethink, for example, the design of some of the vehicles or the structures that go with it—including architectural software structures in apps—it will be too late. We will end up in the position that we have now found ourselves in on the railways; five years ago, we were expecting to have level access at every single railway station in the country to remove the need for ramps. Unfortunately, because there was no work done at that time, rolling stock was bought that did not conform with other rolling stock—let alone platforms—and it was delayed until 2023. It has now been delayed until 2035.
If we do not tackle this right at the start, it will prevent disabled people using these vehicles, because they will not be involved in the process. Just like trying to get hold of wheelchair-accessible cars, it will be almost impossible to find accessibility works for disabled people in AVs.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am very sympathetic to the whole problem of access. Secondly, I recognise it is very complex and defer to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the detailed knowledge that they display in these two amendments.
Broadly speaking, I would like to see these amendments encapsulated in the Bill. The key question, however—which I invite both the noble Lord and noble Baroness to answer—is whether the two concepts contained in these amendments are mutually compatible or are in any way in conflict. If they are not, I support the general direction of these amendments and hope that there is recognition of the latest point made by the noble Baroness: you can expect a much more optimal solution if you adopt a clear direction on this difficult issue at the start, rather than trying to bolt it on afterwards.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will take up the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. You have to start on the right footing immediately. One theme that has run through the amendments to this Bill is that those of us putting forward probing amendments are not doing so in the spirit of wanting to delay anything. I would argue that the purpose of these amendments—the detail may not be ideal; but this is the probing stage—is so integral to getting it right that you must accept that there might be a delay.
This whole project could be seriously delayed by bad publicity, adverse reporting and so on. If one in four people are looking to this brave new world of public transport, which was going to open things up for people with disabilities, and they discover that they cannot get on the new buses or into the new taxis, that will be the sort of really bad publicity that will set this revolution back by a considerable period of time.
I add one little example to those already provided by my noble friend Lady Brinton. I have 30% of normal hearing. I have found a number of times that the requirement to have both audio and visual announcements is not carried out in practice: they either have one or the other. An audio announcement on its own is no use to me at all. It shuts bus journeys off to me in areas where I am not familiar with the stops and layout of the town. If we apply that principle to people in wheelchairs and people with serious sight loss, large parts of the huge potential benefits of this new technology will be unavailable to an increasingly large section of the population. With an older population, this percentage will only get bigger.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has made the point that she can speak twice in Committee. I invite her to speak for a third time to confirm that the two amendments are mutually compatible.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I suspect that between Committee and Report, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I will discuss this in detail. We might even try to do it at the meeting with the Minister.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I once again thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group. Self-driving vehicles present an opportunity to radically improve the accessibility of transport. In particular, automated passenger services could help open up new transport links in areas where accessible services are currently limited. As colleagues rightly point out, however, it will take work to get this right. Indeed, I remind the House of the Law Commissions’ comments on this subject; they said:
“there is much that is not known about how passenger services will operate in the absence of a driver. The immediate need is to collect more evidence and gain more experience, particularly on issues such as accessibility and safeguarding”.
The Government have taken that on board. We are undertaking research to improve our understanding of the current driver duties, so that we may better design requirements to ensure journeys are accessible. Further, applicants for passenger permits will not only be required to show how they are designing services to meet the needs of older and disabled people but obliged to publish reports on how those needs are being met in practice. That is in addition to the requirements under the public sector equality duty, to which I referred in our earlier debate.
On Amendments 53 and 57, we recognise the importance of co-designing the development of self-driving vehicles with disabled people. In our policy paper Connected & Automated Mobility 2025, we committed to setting up an accessibility advisory panel before we launch the passenger permitting regime. The panel will advise on the granting of permits and assist in the development of national minimum accessibility standards. Although we have chosen to do that through non-statutory means, such a body is in line with the principle underpinning the Law Commissions’ recommendation.
The Government already have a statutory adviser on transport accessibility in the form of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The committee has an established role in providing independent advice to the department. It provided feedback as part of the Law Commissions’ review, and its expertise will be brought to bear alongside the advisory panel. Creating further statutory roles risks duplication; I do not wish to see additional complexity added at the expense of a material improvement in outcomes. By contrast, the flexibility offered by a non-statutory solution enables a tailored response that can adapt quickly to the rapid evolution of policy in this area.
I turn to the proposal for a “statement of accessibility principles” put forward by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I absolutely recognise the points he raised and the intent of his amendment, and I reassure him that the measures in the Bill already provide scope to consider accessibility at every stage. As I said during our last debate, the Government will require anyone seeking authorisation to submit an assessment of fair outcomes. As well as considering accessibility for people with different needs, the assessments will cover data biases. Applicants will be required to include plans for how they will avoid their vehicles unfairly discriminating against particular groups, as was recommended by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
My noble friend’s amendment highlights the importance of adopting a whole-journey approach when reviewing accessibility. In his very apt words, there must be a “golden thread” running from the physical vehicle design to the booking system, the integration with public transport, the support offered by operators and beyond. Indeed, the respective roles of each of those elements will likely change considerably as the technology develops and as users become more confident. That is why we look to address those important issues in Part 5 of the Bill as part of the automated passenger services provisions. These provisions allow us to set specific requirements covering the whole-passenger experience, rather than splitting them across the authorisation and operator licensing processes. As I said, accessibility is a mandatory consideration in setting those requirements.
We have already indicated in our policy scoping notes that equality and fairness are likely to be included as part of the statement of safety principles. Therefore, a second set of accessibility principles may create overlap. However, I hope that this offers my noble friend some reassurance that the intent of his amendment is already being considered.
Finally, I turn to the proposal that Clause 83 be removed. Clause 83 disapplies existing taxi, private hire and bus legislation to vehicles operating under an automated passenger services permit. The application of existing public transport legislation to self-driving vehicles is complex and uncertain. While it will remain possible for providers to be regulated under these regimes, as was the case for the CAVForth bus project in Scotland, relying on this alone could leave gaps in regulation. This in turn could lead to unintended consequences and hamper the development of the automated passenger services industry. Therefore, the Law Commissions recommended offering a separate bespoke scheme, creating a clear and lawful route for service providers to become licensed. As well as bringing clarity, this has allowed us to create a modern, flexible framework, specifically designed to help grow our understanding of how automated passenger services can best support people with disabilities. The Government want public transport to be available to all. The intention of Clause 83 has never been to undermine that goal. Its purpose is simply to avoid the ambiguity and potential overlap in how current passenger licensing laws might apply to service providers.
In conclusion, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to withdraw his Amendment 26A. I look forward to discussing these issues further with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the coming days.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response.
The reality is that the current measures on accessibility in the Bill are not specific and are insufficient. To my noble friend Lord Borwick, I say that it is entirely possible that we could add to Clause 87 to make it specific to and sufficient for that purpose; I will certainly get my drafting pen out between Committee and Report.
I look forward to the meeting with the Minister to cover these issues. It is essential that we get them right at this stage. I will give an example of what happens if we do not. For many years, and potentially still, there have been stations on our network that are described as fully accessible; they are marked as “fully accessible” stations on the overall map of the network, be it in London or nationally. Indeed, they are: if you arrive at the stations, they have wide gates; if you have access needs or are a wheelchair user, they have audio announcements; and if you happen to be visually impaired or blind, they have lifts that enable passengers to access the platform. They are fully accessible stations—but you cannot board the train when it arrives. That is why it is critical to look at the golden thread of accessibility for the end-to-end experience. Just one small step, be it even tiny, can trip up the whole process of enabling an accessible experience.
The Bill needs to be beefed up on accessibility, otherwise it will be a game of catch-up and missed opportunities. The Minister said in winding up that there is “scope” for that, but scope is not actuality. He said that there is potential and opportunity, but opportunity is not inevitability. We have the opportunity in the Bill not to slow anything down. Through the input of disabled people from the outset, we can actually speed up the process and have free consultation from them—although everybody who is part of the co-production should, rightly, be paid and supported.
More needs to be done between Committee and Report. The opportunity that accessible automated vehicles provide cannot be left to go the way of other transport developments over the previous 200 years. We will certainly return to this between Committee and Report, potentially with some specific amendments on Report, but for the moment I beg to withdraw my Amendment 26A.
Defending the UK and Allies
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it has come on to the monitor fairly late, so I thought it might be helpful for the House to know that the Back-Bench speaking time will be 30 minutes, if required.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the action that we took on Thursday night against Houthi military targets in Yemen.
Since 19 November, Iran-backed Houthis have launched more than 25 illegal and unacceptable attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, and on 9 January they mounted a direct attack against British and American warships. They fired on our ships and our sailors—it was the biggest attack on the Royal Navy for decades—and so we acted. We did so in self-defence, consistent with the UN charter, and to uphold freedom of navigation, as Britain has always done.
Alongside the United States, with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, we ordered the RAF to strike two Houthi military facilities in Yemen. I want to be clear that these were limited strikes. They were carefully targeted at launch sites for drones and ballistic missiles to degrade the Houthis’ capacity to make further attacks on international shipping. I can tell the House today that we assess that all 13 planned targets were destroyed. At the drone and cruise missile base in Bani, nine buildings were successfully hit. A further three buildings were hit at Abbs airfield, along with a cruise missile launcher caught in the open. We have seen no evidence thus far of civilian casualties, which we took great care to avoid. I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible bravery and professionalism of all our service men and women.
The need to maximise the security and effectiveness of the operation meant that it was not possible to bring this matter to the House in advance, but we took care to brief Members—including you, of course, Mr Speaker, and the leader of the Opposition—before the strikes took place, and I have come to the House at the earliest opportunity. I do not take decisions on the use of force lightly. That is why I stress that this action was taken in self-defence. It was limited, not escalatory. It was a necessary and proportionate response to a direct threat to UK vessels, and therefore to the UK itself.
Let me be absolutely clear why the Royal Navy is in the Red Sea. It is there as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian, protecting freedom of navigation as a fundamental tenet of international law. The Houthis’ attacks on international shipping have put innocent lives at risk. They have held one crew hostage for almost two months, and they are causing growing economic disruption. Global commerce cannot operate under such conditions. Containers and tankers are having to take a 5,000-mile detour around the Cape of Good Hope. That pushes up prices and imperils the passage of goods, foods and medicines that the British people and others rely on.
We have attempted to resolve this through diplomacy. After numerous international calls for the attacks to stop, a coalition of countries gave the Houthis a clear and unambiguous warning two weeks ago. Last week, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the attacks and highlighting the right of nations to defend their vessels and preserve freedom of navigation, yet the Houthis continued on their reckless path.
We should not fall for the Houthis’ malign narrative that this is about Israel-Gaza—they target ships from around the world. We continue to work towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza and to get more aid to civilians. We also continue to support a negotiated settlement in Yemen’s civil war, but I want to be very clear that this action is completely unrelated to those issues. It is a direct response to the Houthis’ attacks on international shipping. We should also recognise the risks of inaction. It would weaken international security and the rule of law, further damage freedom of navigation and the global economy, and send a dangerous message that British vessels and British interests are fair game.
There is another point here, which is often overlooked. The Houthis’ attacks risk worsening the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen itself. The United Kingdom helps to feed around 100,000 Yemenis every month, with aid arriving via the very sea routes that the Houthis have in their sights.
The threats to shipping must cease. Illegally detained vessels and crews must be released, and we remain prepared to back our words with actions. But dealing with that threat does not detract from our other international commitments; rather, it strengthens our determination to uphold fundamental UN principles. If our adversaries think they can distract us from helping Ukraine by threatening international security elsewhere, they could not be more wrong.
On Friday, I travelled to Kyiv to meet President Zelensky and address the Ukrainian Parliament. I took a message from this House to the Rada that we will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes. If Putin wins in Ukraine, he will not stop there, and other malign actors will be emboldened. That is why Ukraine’s security is our security. That is why the UK will stay the course, and it is why I am confident that our partners share our resolve.
Far from our resolve faltering, our military support to Ukraine will increase this year. We will provide the biggest single package of defence aid to Ukraine since the war began, worth £2.5 billion. That will include more air defence equipment, more anti-tank weapons, more long-range missiles, thousands more rounds of ammunition and artillery shells, training for thousands more Ukrainian service men and women, and the single largest package of advanced drones given to Ukraine by any nation. All this is on top of what we have already provided to support Ukraine.
In total, since the war began, the United Kingdom will have provided almost £12 billion of aid to Ukraine. We were the first to train Ukrainian troops, the first in Europe to provide lethal weapons, the first to commit main battle tanks, the first to provide long-range missiles, and now we are the first to keep the promise made at last year’s NATO summit, alongside 30 other countries, to provide new bilateral security commitments. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO, and NATO will be stronger with Ukraine in it, but these commitments will help bridge the gap until that day comes.
Under the new agreement that we signed with President Zelensky, we are building Ukraine’s military capacities; and, if Russia ever invades Ukraine again, we will provide swift and sustained assistance, including modern equipment across land, air and sea. Together with our allies, the UK will be there from the first moment until the last. For all of this, I bring a message of thanks from President Zelensky to the British people. Today, I hope that this House will join me in sending a message back to the Ukrainian people: that we stand together as one in support of these firm commitments.
We are building a new partnership with Ukraine, designed to last 100 years or more. Yes, it is about defence and security, but it is also about trade, investment, culture and more. There could be no more powerful sign of our unique bond than Ukraine’s decision to adopt English as the language of business and diplomacy. So, through the British Council, we are going to fund English language training for the Ukrainian people.
In dangerous times, we are investing in defence, hardening our critical infrastructure and building our alliances. We are resolute in our principles: international security; the rule of law; and the freedom to determine your own future. An attack on those principles is an attack on everything that we believe in and on which our lives and livelihoods depend. As the home of parliamentary democracy and a leader in collective security, it is our responsibility to defend those principles and to defend our people. This is who we are. This is what Britain does and will always do. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. I also thank him, on my behalf and that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for our briefing at the Cabinet Office today; it was appreciated and useful.
As we heard in the Statement, this situation has been escalating over several weeks, putting lives at risk and causing considerable disruption to international shipping. First, we concur that the Government were right to do all they could to end such attacks through international diplomatic routes. We appreciate the considerable efforts that were taken to avoid a military response. As the Statement said, freedom of navigation is a fundamental tenet of international law, so seeking as wide a consensus as possible through the UN and other routes was the right approach.
However, when it became apparent that these diplomatic efforts were not working, it was also right that the Government acted in self-defence following further direct attacks on our Navy and US warships. So we back this limited and targeted action to reinforce maritime security in the Red Sea. We strongly condemn the Houthi attacks targeting commercial ships of all nationalities, putting civilians and military personnel—including British forces—in serious danger. Their actions are unacceptable and illegal. If left unaddressed, they could lead to a devasting rise in the cost of essential food in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The international community clearly stands against the Houthi attacks. Alongside the UK and the United States, four other countries were involved in this military operation. More than a dozen nations are part of the maritime protection force in the Red Sea, while many others supported the recent UN Security Council resolution that condemned these attacks in “the strongest possible terms”.
The UK’s response was proportionate and targeted to avoid civilian casualties. Can the Leader of the House provide more information on the strategic objectives of the military response, including how the Houthis’ response will be judged? He will be aware that, today—before the Statement was drafted, I think—there were reports of a further missile attack on a US cargo ship. I am sure that the Government will monitor this carefully; there may not be full information available yet but, at this stage, I ask him to commit to returning to your Lordships’ House in order to ensure that we are kept informed.
We are not clear yet whether this is a short-term targeted response or part of an ongoing campaign from the Houthis, but can the Leader of the House confirm that the strategic objective is to degrade or destroy the capability to launch attacks on international shipping? In the light of this assessment of capabilities, does he agree that further parliamentary scrutiny will be essential?
Our primary objective has to be the avoidance of escalation across the Middle East, so continuing engagement with our international partners is vital. None of us wants to see this proportionate act of self-defence being exploited by those in the region who seek to expand and escalate violence. This includes in Yemen itself. We must support international diplomatic efforts to address the huge humanitarian impact of the civil war.
Our Armed Forces across the region are showing the highest professionalism and bravery, both in defending commercial shipping and in this targeted action. As the Leader of the House said, we thank them; it is also worth putting on the record that we are proud of them. They continue to show that Britain is a force for good. However, can I ask the Leader of the House about their protection and how the Government are bolstering protection for our service men and women in the region?
The Leader of the House also referred to Ukraine. The professionalism of our Armed Forces has been crucial in our support for Ukraine. We on these Benches welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of £2.5 billion for Ukraine next year and strongly support the agreement on security co-operation. This will provide President Zelensky with the vital confidence that he needs to plan for the year ahead; it also cements our support for self-defence for decades.
The Leader of the House asked this House to send a message to Ukraine. The strong message from this Parliament continues to be that we in the UK stand united—and will continue to stand united—in our condemnation of Putin’s invasion and our determination that Ukraine is equipped to defend itself for as long as it takes.
It is now more than 100 days since the shockingly brutal events of 7 October. Israel’s right to self-defence is fundamental yet, the longer the conflict in Gaza rages, the more the risk of escalation throughout the entire region grows. All our thoughts are with the civilians who have been, and continue to be, caught up in this horrific war. As my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury confirmed earlier today in your Lordships’ House, we welcome the efforts to secure UN Resolution 2720 and the Government’s commitment to seeking a sustained ceasefire, which would deliver the humanitarian support that is so desperately needed.
In the same way that we should seek to avoid escalation in the Red Sea, we must also urge restraint on the Israel-Lebanon border and make it crystal clear to parties that the UK does not support this conflict extending into Lebanon. On the issue of humanitarian support into Gaza, can the Minister say anything about other routes that may be looked at in order to provide such support, such as via the Royal Navy or airdrops? How are the Government supporting the diplomatic process that is being brokered by the US envoy to prevent a full-scale war breaking out across that border between Israel and Lebanon?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement.
As the Statement makes clear, our military action follows not only a direct attack on our warships but some 25 other attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea over recent weeks. These attacks not only jeopardised many lives but were and are threatening the continued operation of the sea route through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, which plays such a vital role in the world trading system. We therefore also believe that the UK had little option but to act.
The challenge in these circumstances is always whether the action we take will have a lasting deterrent effect and whether it is proportionate. Whether it has a lasting effect on the Houthis remains to be seen, but it was certainly limited in scope and was, in our view, proportionate to the attacks that we had suffered. However, it is hardly likely to be the end of the story, and I repeat the request by the noble Baroness that Parliament has every opportunity to debate events as they unfold.
What makes this episode so significant and worrying is that it represents yet another flashpoint in an already extremely volatile area where the risk of escalation attends every move. I am sure that the Minster and the Government are well aware of this risk, but I ask them to keep it front of mind in the coming days and weeks as the situation develops. The Prime Minister says that this action is completely unrelated to what is happening in Gaza, but there is surely some link. It is therefore reassuring to hear the Prime Minister repeat that the Government will continue to work towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza and getting more aid to civilians. Can the Minister say anything about this work and give the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of aid being increased in the short term and of achieving a ceasefire at some point in the coming days and weeks?
On the Houthis, can I ask the Minister about the extent to which the UK and the US Governments have sought and obtained international support for the actions that we have taken? It is obviously in the interests of a large number of countries, not least our European neighbours, that the Suez Canal route is kept open, yet the Statement only mentions the Netherlands among all the European countries that have supported our military action. What is the attitude of other major nations in Europe towards this action? What efforts have been made to get their more overt support to date, and what more is being done to extend the coalition, whose membership at the moment looks rather limited compared with the global nature of the threat posed by continued Houthi military action on world trade?
As we take action against the Houthis, what more can we do to support the recognised Yemeni Government, not least by helping them to solve the huge problems of malnutrition and famine that afflict Yemen, where some 11 million children remain in need of humanitarian assistance? The Statement says that the Government feed around 100,000 Yemenis every month. This clearly meets only a very small fraction of the need. Might the Government consider, at the very least, reinstating the £200 million cut which they recently made to our aid budget for Yemen?
The Statement also deals with our continuing military assistance for Ukraine. We support the strong line which the Government have taken in pledging our long-term support to the country in its struggle against the Russian invaders. However, we hear disturbing reports that some other members of the coalition supporting Ukraine may be getting cold feet. Can the Minister tell the House what diplomatic efforts the UK is making to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs in the future, not just from this country but from our other international partners?
It has become a cliché to say that we live in an increasingly dangerous world. Yet, as this Statement demonstrates, it is sadly the case. We will have to work increasingly hard in the months and years ahead, not just on our own but in co-operation with other like-minded democracies, to vigorously defend the principles for which we stand.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the tone and content of the response from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. In person, by their presence here and in what they said, they absolutely exemplified what I was talking about in the Statement—the need to send a united and common message out from this House to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Parliament that we will be there for the duration, for as long as it takes, and of our steadfast and implacable opposition to interference with freedom of navigation, which is one of the most fundamental and long-lasting principles of international law.
The noble Baroness was quite right to point out that these events followed weeks if not months of continuing activity by the Houthis dating back to last year. I think it was on 16 December 2023 that the HMS “Diamond” brought down an attack of drones targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea. We said at the time that it was the first time in more than 30 years that the Navy had fired in action at an aerial target. Yes, warnings were given on 3 January this year. We joined the international statement on the Red Sea. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary is here, and I can assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that there have been continuing unceasing efforts on the diplomatic front and in direct conversations and channels, for example, with the Iranian backers of the Houthis—the Foreign Secretary himself spoke to the Iranian Foreign Secretary—to make people be in no doubt that this is a situation which the international community could not and will not tolerate.
I think there has been a slight downgrading of the degree of international support and commitment here. There are 20 other nations involved in Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is the core of the protection of the Red Sea. Although we only cited four nations that were specifically involved in the targeted operation that took place last weekend, many other nations are offering practical support and diplomatic assistance. Let us also not forget that on 10 January the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the attacks and on the rights of nations to defend their vessels and to preserve the freedom of navigation. The right to self-defence is inherent in Article 51. We were exercising self-defence, but in our action we are also exercising action in defence of international law and freedom of navigation.
The noble Baroness asked what our strategy is. Our strategy and intent, and the intent of the international community, is to ensure and maintain the principle of free and open navigation. A clear signal has been sent to the Houthis, in a different form of language from the very clear signals that were sent before. We hope very much that in time it will be heeded and that we can restore international law and the rule of order in the Red Sea. We urge the Houthis to stop jeopardising—I agree with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said—the best chance of peace in Yemen for years, which happened on the basis of previous discussions. They need to engage constructively to expand the benefits which the de facto truce in Yemen brought to the Yemeni people.
I was asked about aid to Yemen. We are deeply committed to support for Yemen. In March, we committed £88 million of aid for this financial year and we are delivering care for about 400 facilities there at the moment.
The Houthis must heed the message and obey international law, and those who back them must urge them to do so. I am not speculating on what might or might not happen in the future. I am aware of a further incident today, but I think the noble Baroness will understand if the British Government and our partners wish to evaluate what has happened and what may be behind it.
On coming back to this House, we have the inestimable value of having my noble friend the Foreign Secretary here in it. He is answering Questions tomorrow, although not on this subject. I know that he and I are very committed, as is my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, to making sure that your Lordships are kept informed—so far as we may.
I assure the noble Baroness that we are aware and have taken into account the positioning of other British forces and assets in the broad area. Without going into detail, certainly, consideration is being given to the security of those people.
So far as Israel and Gaza are concerned, we absolutely reject the absurd Houthi claim that this is anything to do with the Israel and Gaza conflict. The Houthis were firing on ships that had nothing to do with Israel. This is a completely false narrative and we should not fall into the trap—I was pleased that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord did not—of linking it in the way that the Houthis suggest.
Of course, we would love to see the conflict in Israel and Gaza somehow come to a conclusion. No one wants to see it go on a moment longer than necessary and we support a sustainable ceasefire, as the Prime Minister has made clear, but it must be sustainable—one that will last. That means, frankly, Hamas no longer in power in Gaza and able to threaten Israel with rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism. Hamas does not represent the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations. Perhaps some of those who charge around on the streets of our kingdom might recognise that and think of it for a moment.
However—and I fully take what noble Lords opposite have said—ahead of a sustainable ceasefire, we want to see immediate and sustained humanitarian pauses to get more aid in and hostages out, helping to create the conditions for a durable peace. A sustainable ceasefire would be just the first step.
In our dialogue and that of the Foreign Secretary, we are looking at ways to get more humanitarian aid in, as and how we can. We have encouraged the Israeli Government to facilitate some access from the sea, without going into specific places or points. We are very much on the case here, but I re-emphasise that the aim is to deter the Houthis, and to deter the Russians in their unlawful breaches of international law and their aggression in Ukraine.
I again thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite for what they said on Ukraine. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that although we are the first in terms of the security arrangements announced in the Statement, they flowed from the Vilnius discussions. In the days and weeks ahead, I think that he will find that many other nations follow our course.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, this is a sombre moment, because we have seen an escalation provoked entirely by Iran and its proxies, but we must be on our guard not to fall into the trap of provocation leading to a wider conflagration. I entirely support the Government’s action and I hope that they will continue to consult Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord True, might recall that I moved the first Private Member’s Bill in 2016 trying to regularise a war powers Act of some sort. I was given assurances that Parliament would always be consulted and that there was no need for legislation.
International co-operation has been mentioned today. We know that European Union member states are meeting on 1 February to determine how a naval task force mission might be organised. My question to the noble Lord is whether, once we know what their naval mission will be like, there will be any element of interoperability and burden-sharing with them.
This action is entirely necessary. I have just returned from Singapore, and I looked out on the Malacca Strait and saw what harm a lack of freedom of maritime navigation might do there, in the Taiwan Strait and in numerous other places. I am very pleased that we are taking our United Nations Security Council responsibilities to defend international peace and security so seriously.
Lord True (Con)
I very much welcome what the noble Baroness has said. Who gains most from freedom of navigation? It is some of the poorest people in the world. Not only in this action standing up for the principle of free navigation at sea but in the developing situation in Ukraine, the British Government have been extraordinarily active in protecting navigation.
In Ukraine, not least because of the consistent material support that the British Government have given to the Ukrainian Government, which we commit to continue, the Ukrainians have been able strategically to force back the aggressive actions of the Russian fleet and deployment in the Black Sea. That has enabled an opening of grain routes via the Black Sea and out to the world, which has led to very considerable exports of Ukrainian grain. One of the most deplorable things about the Russian attempt to block navigation in the Black Sea was that the people who gain most from Ukrainian grain exports are, as I said, some of the poorest in the world.
I assure the noble Baroness that we are working tirelessly with allies to keep an international focus on this. We were originally there as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian, which itself is an international and multinational action. I very much accept what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I unequivocally support the action that the Government have taken and observe that it was not only the right course of action but the only course of action. I pay tribute to our Armed Forces for their precision and professionalism in discharging that essential task.
I ask the Minister to reassure me on one point and it is quite simply this: I know from my previous experience as a Defence Minister that paramount in any discussion about the deployment of our forces and our defence capability is operational security. It must dominate any further discussion on any future intervention, which I fear may be more likely rather than less. In this Chamber at least, can we be reassured that, if the Government are contemplating further action that involves deployment of our Armed Forces, absolute regard will be had to the need to keep matters covert until the intervention has taken place, and then there is an appropriate place for discussion in Parliament?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is a balance to be reached in these things. I agree with what my noble friend said. In terms of accountability, the Prime Minister came to the House of Commons and explained the position at the first opportunity. As I said in the Statement, he ensured that the leader of the Opposition was briefed, as we did in this House. There is a balance to be struck, but in no circumstances must we imperil our heroic service men and women by telegraphing and broadcasting what future operations may be. I assure my noble friend that operational security is fundamental.
However, she and the House can be assured that we are taking proportionate and deliberate action. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary wrote an article in the newspaper; I do not read them all, so I cannot remember which one it was—
Lord True (Con)
The Daily Telegraph—a very important newspaper. He set out in precise and clear detail the extent to which the Government had gone to show and make sure that our action was proportionate and deliberate. We will continue to operate in that way, also protecting operational security.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, further to the initial point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, there is a trap of aggression leading to further escalation. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the views of a former US ambassador to Yemen, and now an American academic, published on Friday, in which he stated that the Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping were, in his assessment, designed to “provoke US retaliation”. Given that the domestic popularity of the Houthis was ebbing until the outbreak of hostilities in Israel/Gaza, and that they derive almost all their support from fostering a sense of anti-western grievance, what assessment has the Foreign Office made of this hypothesis that the Houthis have foreseen and deliberately provoked military reprisals?
No one should dispute, and certainly I do not, that our air strikes, which in the words of the Prime Minister were
“intended as a limited, single action”,
were proportionate and justified. But we must be mindful that we may have degraded Houthi offensive capabilities at the price of increasing their domestic political support. Can the Minister inform us what analysis has been undertaken in respect of the likely long-term political consequences of our actions, particularly within Yemen itself?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that “aggression” is really an appropriate word to use in this respect. The United Kingdom, the United States and other nations involved have not undertaken any form of aggression. I think that if the noble Lord, with his great experience as a very distinguished Minister, had been faced with a situation where a British warship had been attacked by 20 drones and nine missiles, he might have asked himself whether some response would be appropriate. I think I said in this Statement, and repeated in earlier responses, that very careful and calibrated warnings have been given here. But with this aggression—if one wants to use that word; frankly, it is tantamount to a piratical attempt to interrupt the right of people all over the world to trade and move, and use the freedom of the seas—there is, as I said in the Statement, a cost to inaction. The Government’s judgment, and I believe the judgment of the House broadly, would be that not to have responded to that kind of attack, not only on one of our own warships, would have a cost. Were we to lose such a warship, having been targeted by 29 weapons, that would have been regarded as a disaster. We should remember that the Houthis have launched more than 25 attacks already on ships in the region, including those sailing under the British flag. This is not aggression; this is an act of self-defence and defence of international law.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am very reassured by much of what I have heard this evening, but I think there is a distinction between what is escalatory in intent and in effect. If the effect is escalation, how are the UK Government preparing or planning for a wider escalation? I am particularly concerned about the capacity of our Armed Forces. I am happy to be reassured, but often in this House we have questions about whether we have sufficient personnel, as well as equipment. Can the Minister give some assurance that we do have capacity, and that the implications of the 2023 integrated review might be revisited in the light of developments in the last few months?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate refers to the integrated review. Obviously, the integrated review refresh confirmed an additional £5 billion to the Ministry of Defence over the next two years. That followed a £24 billion four-year cash uplift in defence spending in 2020, which I think was the largest sustained increase since the Cold War. For the first time, our annual defence budget is over £50 billion. I do not think that is what is actually keeping the right reverend Prelate awake at night; I think he was asking whether we can be assured that our troops, airmen and sailors will receive the equipment and resources they need to meet whatever eventualities occur. The Government’s commitment is that the answer to that is yes. We are already letting contracts for the renewal of equipment, to ensure proper defence and support.
As far as escalation is concerned, I can only repeat what I said: the British Government and the international community have made it absolutely clear that they do not want escalatory action in this part of the world under any circumstances. However, we were confronted with the situation we were, with the Houthis firing on innocent commercial vessels. Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea increased 500% between November and December; then we saw the attack on warships. It is not the British Government or anyone else who have been escalating; we were faced with action to which we have made an appropriate, lawful and proportionate response.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, following on from the right reverend Prelate’s question, perhaps I might press the Lord Privy Seal a little further. While it is clearly right that this action was taken, and the fact that it was limited and proportionate is very welcome, we are seeing ever more military engagement, for all sorts of very pertinent reasons. We hear that the defence budget has been increased, and we have heard the figures. We have heard the further commitment to Ukraine; all those are welcome. But do we actually have the reassurance that we have sufficient personnel to man—person—our ships? In particular, do we have sufficient people working in the Navy, and is recruitment adequate, because there are some short-, medium- and long-term questions we need to be reassured about?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we do have enough people. Not only do we have enough people, we have some of the most outstanding people in our nation, and I know that the noble Baroness would agree with me on that. Recruitment is always a challenge in any walk of life, and certainly in the Armed Forces. We are actively involved in recruitment and will continue to be so. I believe that serving our nation in the Armed Forces is a very high calling, and I am confident that we will be able to sustain the efforts to maintain our forces in the years ahead.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, let us hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and then my noble friend.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Statement mentioned that the performance of the Royal Air Force was supported by Australia and three other countries. That sort of support is very important to the crews, and I thoroughly encourage that as much of that sort of international support is obtained as is possible. Media reports suggested that France may have been approached but did not wish to support the RAF attack. Is there any truth in that?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, with his great experience, will know that I am not going into the individual stances of particular nations on particular events or operations. We are in constant discussion with not only the Government of France but other nations about the situation. France is an important ally. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right to refer to the brilliance of the operation—that is our early assessment of its effectiveness. Assessments are obviously continuing, but I think he would have been very proud, in his old career, of the effectiveness of the Air Force in the operation that it undertook.
The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right as far as international support is concerned. We are very grateful to all the Governments involved in this operation. I mentioned Bahrain, the Netherlands and Australia—that partnership with Australia is obviously very important, but a range of nations were involved. He is absolutely right to say that this international co-operation is important. I am hearing that from all round the House. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and others are involved tirelessly in that operation.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that the Saudis have had many years of armed conflict with the Houthis. Now that the alliance of those who are opposed to the Houthis has been extended, would it not be helpful to ensure there is the largest possible co-operation and integration with the Saudis, both in military assets and intelligence matters?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an extraordinarily important player and actor in the field. The Prime Minister had a constructive and useful meeting there when he visited the region last year. He was very well received, as is my noble friend the Foreign Secretary when he goes there for grown-up, constructive, thoughtful talks about how we may secure long-term peace and prosperity for an area of the world where there should be peace and prosperity for all. That is our hope. We have agreed with the Government of Saudi Arabia to co-ordinate action on supporting regional security. The Prime Minister also discussed humanitarian aid for Gaza. My noble friend is absolutely right that the Gulf countries are important for our interests, particularly trade and investment, and energy and climate change. I can assure him that those dialogues continue.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lord, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the pilots of those four Typhoons, who undertook an astonishing, skilful and very courageous mission—an eight-hour return flight, including what must have been a very difficult attack. It is clear that the Houthis still retain a substantial store of potentially extremely dangerous and hazardous missiles. My noble friend has already quite properly said that he cannot forecast what might happen, but it is clear that we will not have done that much harm to their residual stocks.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think the Houthis have fewer missiles than they had before this operation took place, but my noble friend is absolutely right. Again, I am not going into operational matters and would not want to give the House any impression of what might or might not follow in any eventuality, but it is clearly a good thing if the Houthis’ capacity to take action is degraded. The real thing is that the Houthis should simply stop these attacks. Those who have influence over them—notably the Iranian Government, who support them—should tell them to stop, and they have been told that they should tell them to stop. That may be a naive aspiration, but that is the way to deal with the problem: stop it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The time is up on this business.
Lord True (Con)
I am sorry, I think the noble Baroness was not here: we have agreed to extend this to 30 minutes.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
That is fortunate.
As we have heard, the action taken by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force was clearly both justified and necessary. Although the Prime Minister’s Statement is careful, for diplomatic reasons, to say that action was unrelated to other events in the Middle East, it clearly is related to the malign influence of Iran on the Houthis, as far as Hamas is concerned, and in the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel on its northern border. As Israel confronts hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah missiles aimed at its northern border, with over 100,000 Israeli citizens evacuated and Hezbollah still not having pulled back above the Litani river, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, what further pressure can western powers, including His Majesty’s Government, bring to bear on Iran to get the Hezbollah terrorists to cease and desist?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is quite clear that the behaviour of the Iranian regime, including the actions of the revolutionary guards, poses a significant threat to the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our allies. Indeed, Iran’s direct threats to dissidents in the UK are also concerning. There have been at least 15 credible threats by the regime against people in this country. We have sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals, but the noble Lord is quite right to say that, although Hamas alone was responsible for carrying out the attacks, Iran bears responsibility for the actions of groups such as those he has referred to and the Houthis, who it has long supported politically, financially and militarily. As I said earlier in my response, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary called his Iranian counterpart directly on 31 December and made it clear that Iran must use its influence with groups to prevent escalation, including in the Red Sea. We will hold Iran to account for any further escalation from these groups, which it continues to support. We will continue to work to disrupt Iranian activity, including attempts to smuggle to the Houthis, by working with our international partners in those operations.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. To be clear, three tests need to be passed before we can have military action. The first is that it must be necessary, the second that there must be clear distinction between military and civilian targets, and the third that it must be proportionate. I am quite clear in my mind that we passed all three of those tests in this action and I give it my full support. Equally, I recognise that there is no connection to what is happening in Israel and Gaza. However, that view is not necessarily held by some in the region. I simply ask my noble friend to continue to argue the case that there is no link. My other concern is that, although we had lots of support in the region, not all our allies there were vocal in their support for this action. If we are to continue this possibility, can we please ensure that diplomatic effort continues so that we can get all of our allies singing from the same hymn sheet?
Lord True (Con)
Absolutely so, my Lords. My noble friend and my other noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon are both very actively involved with this, along with the Foreign Secretary. Some people can say things in a place such as this House and say things publicly that maybe they cannot say in other forums. That may well be the case in diplomatic exchanges. However, I can assure your Lordships that few people support the disruptive and malign activities of the Iranian regime in seeking to destabilise an area of the world where we must spend all our efforts to bring stability and prevent escalation. That is our constant objective. I can promise my noble friend that we will certainly continue to make the distinction between protecting international shipping and the situation in Gaza, because that is the truth of the matter. As I said in my first response, the Houthis were firing on ships that had absolutely nothing to do with Israel. That is an activity which must cease.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is the 18th time I have asked a question on or raised Yemen in this Chamber in the past three and a half years. The first time I was referencing UK humanitarian and development support for Yemen, which was £235 million. It was justified by the Government—correctly—on the ground that the UK has a long-term interest in a more stable Yemen, with the kind of prosperity and human development to which the Leader referred. That £235 million has been cut by two-thirds over the intervening period, without an impact assessment being published by the Government, so the figure the Leader referred to is now less than one-third of what it was three and half years ago. What was the strategic case for that?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, Yemen has been through an extraordinarily difficult period of conflict and the noble Lord is quite right to bring the matter to your Lordships’ House, as have many other Members of this House. The United Kingdom Government have stood with the Yemeni people, and we continue to stand with the Yemeni people. As the noble Lord will know with his expertise in these matters, there has been a de facto settlement in some of the conflict in Lebanon, which Saudi Arabia has been involved with, and there is a good chance of a peace in which we could develop further humanitarian aid. Again, the Houthis should recognise that. Frankly, if you are worried about humanitarian aid, whether you are a Houthi or anybody else, firing on commercial shipping is about the worst thing you could do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I take just a moment to join the expressions from around your Lordships’ House of solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We should put on the record the world’s sadness at the death of the poet Maxim Kryvtsov, who died in the front line fighting to defend his country, Ukraine.
We are focused mostly on the significant military action conducted by UK forces in the Red Sea, which was obviously long planned and considered, which the Houthi forces must have been expecting and, indeed, have been deliberately inviting. Yet it is only days later that Parliament is debating the UK’s action. Can the Leader of the House assure us that, before any further action is considered—action that can only be escalatory—the House will be consulted and the Commons will have a vote on that action?
In view of the testimony cited by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and others about the concerns of experts that the Houthis may actually be strengthened by the UK and US action—indeed, the right reverend Prelate hit the nail on the head talking about the difference so often in UK foreign policy in the Middle East between intention and effect—can the Leader of the House tell me hand on heart that the US and UK Governments have a long-term plan for peace and stability for the region of the Red Sea and more broadly, rather than being drawn again into a conflict without any long-term plan? Given that today the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 24,000, will the UK Government call for a ceasefire now?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have referred to the British Government’s desire to see a sustainable ceasefire, but I have set out some of the conditions and the state in which that would happen. The noble Baroness forgets very quickly the bestial attack that was made on Israel by Hamas, and Hamas must be dealt with. I cannot give an assurance that there will be a vote before every action that is necessary, for the very precise reason that other noble Lord have said: we need to consider the operational security of our forces who are putting their lives on the line, in this case not only in self-defence in relation to attacks on them but also in upholding international law, about which the noble Baroness is often quite eloquent in this House. I find it disappointing that, when there is a flagrant breach of international law and Governments such as the Government of Australia, of which she has some knowledge, join us in taking action to deal with it, she is so churlish. No one wants war, but if those who peddle war get away without a response, history proves that the consequences are often dire.
Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]
Monday 15th January 2024
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Automated Vehicles Act 2024 View all Automated Vehicles Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (11 Jan 2024)
Lord Liddle
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a consequential amendment on Lord Liddle’s other amendment to insert a new clause entitled “Liability of insurers”.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, from a discussion of the critical world situation, we move to discuss insurance questions under automated vehicles—such is the breadth of the House of Lords.
In moving Amendment 38 and speaking to the other amendments in this group, we on this side of the House are not pretending that we are insurance experts. We are not, but we do think it is a very striking omission from the Bill that there appears to be no reference to insurance, at least in any detailed way. I think this is puzzling. There are already arguments from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers that the advent of automated features in driving cars has led to insurance uncertainties, the obvious example being that if one puts one’s car on cruise control on the assumption that it has an automatic braking system and the automatic braking system does not work, who is liable? Is it still the driver, or the people who manufactured the system, or the motor manufacturer who installed it? I think these questions will multiply as we move towards a world of automated vehicles.
This was brought home to me when the Minister kindly wrote to us—I am not sure I have the piece of paper here—about the time that you are allowed when you are given a warning that you have to take control of the vehicle. The department has not made up its mind. It wants to try to work out how this might vary in different circumstances; that is what I understand the department’s position to be.
This strikes me as highlighting what I think will become a significant issue: if an accident occurs in this period, where you are given a warning and you have to do something to control the car, there will be tremendous disputes about who was actually in charge and liable at the time. This at least has to be addressed. If it is not addressed in the content of the Bill, we have to know that the department has a solution to this issue.
That, in summary, is what the amendments I have put down are about. I am not sure that they are technically in order, and I doubt very much whether they would be in the final version of the Bill, but we are asking the Government here to take away this issue, think about it and come up with something when the Bill comes back to us on Report. With that, I move the amendment in my name.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to one of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because I was struck by the briefing that we received from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, to which the noble Lord has just referred. Other people who have been in correspondence with us have highlighted the fact that non-motorised road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians—one can think of many others; horse riders, for example—are already physically the most vulnerable on any road. Their vulnerability will be compounded in future by their legal disadvantage in relation to insurance unless this Bill is very clear.
This is not like a vehicle-to-vehicle accident. If my vehicle hits your vehicle, in normal circumstances we will be insured. The situation is dealt with by lawyers acting for insurance companies, which operate via clear rules. Because of the information they hold, automated vehicles should make things clearer. They will have recorded the information showing exactly what has happened; we will no longer rely on individual drivers’ responses.
However, when a vehicle hits a pedestrian, that pedestrian would not normally be insured as a pedestrian and would undoubtedly be unaware of their legal situation and, in most circumstances, of their legal rights. They could be in a position where they are too young or too badly injured, for instance, to be able to take the appropriate action at the time. So it is very important that this Bill is absolutely clear about the situation.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers raised the specific issue of Section 2 of the 2018 Act, which allows people who are injured by an automated vehicle when it is driving itself to make a claim against the driver’s insurance. This provision is now included here. If the Bill is passed, this section will apply to automated vehicles if they are travelling while an authorised automation feature of the vehicle is engaged.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments. As has been rightly stated, it covers a serious and significant aspect of the Bill under consideration.
I will speak to my Amendment 55A, which, quite simply, goes to the question around the provision of data to establish liability in the event of an AV being involved in an accident. What we know from the whole question of automated vehicles is that they are simultaneously both extraordinary producers of, and consumers of, data. There are so many data issues, which need to be considered right through every element of the Bill in front of us.
When it comes to the swift understanding, investigation and attribution of liability in the event of an accident, it is clearly critical for all of that data to be understood by the parties who require it in the establishment of liability for the accident. Amendment 55A simply asks the Secretary of State to review the current situation and to produce guidance to bring clarity, certainty and whatever is required to avoid delay, distress and any other negative elements that would be occasioned if the wrong approach were taken in the event of an automated vehicle being involved in an accident where there was an inability to gain the right access to the data and to quickly and efficiently establish liability. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)
My Lords, once again I am grateful for the contributions in this group. One of the central functions of the Bill is to clarify how liability is to be handled in a world of self-driving vehicles. This is a complex area and I reiterate my thanks to the Law Commissions for their many years of work developing the approaches that we are discussing today. I am grateful also to noble Lords for their insightful contributions and scrutiny on this critical issue.
Amendment 55G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, would require a study to be conducted on human reactions to transition demands. Before I address that proposal, I will respond to his specific point about how liability applies during the transition period. The Bill is explicit that the authorised self-driving entity remains responsible for the behaviour of the vehicle until the transition period expires. After that period, liability shifts to the driver. However, it is a misconception to imagine that manual control will simply be forced on the driver at the end of that period. Clause 7(3)(e) mandates that vehicles be capable of dealing safely with a situation in which the user-in-charge fails to assume control. In other words, although legal responsibility shifts back to the driver once the transition period expires, the vehicle is still required to bring itself to a safe stop without their intervention. A vehicle that was unable to do that would not be authorised.
On the amendment itself, there is already a considerable body of evidence on response times to transition demands, particularly using simulators. Much of that underpins the international automated lane keeping systems regulation to which I referred earlier. There are a number of additional research projects in this space already in development across the Department for Transport and its agencies. For example, one such project looks to explore what activities a user-in-charge can safely perform while their vehicle is driving itself. This is a question that will also require ongoing monitoring and evaluation over time. We will be able to mandate information sharing from authorised self-driving entities to further expand this evidence base as the technology develops.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am not trying to be difficult, but I did not quite understand the point the Minister made about the ASDE still being liable. Let us hypothesise a simple situation. A vehicle is being driven autonomously. A warning is given so the driver takes control, but he is unable to stop the vehicle in time from crashing into a motorcyclist or whatever. The driver is in control—is it clear that he is not liable? Does the Minister see what I mean? I think you can have a situation where you are required to take control but it is too challenging a situation for you to do what is necessary, and you get involved in an accident. Are you then liable? I just do not understand. I am not clear what the position is.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up that point. I think the Bill specifically protects the driver from being put in an impossible position by the handover, but I might go away and get proper clarification instead of standing here and—while not guessing—giving my opinion.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
That is fine with me. Perhaps, in the meeting we are going to have, we can discuss this question so that someone who actually understands it properly can explain it to us.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
That will be a challenge.
I will pick up from where I left off. We will be able to mandate information sharing from authorised self-driving entities to further expand this evidence base as the technology develops. Such issues may also be considered and reviewed as part of the general monitoring duty under Clause 38. For those reasons, I believe the amendment is unnecessary.
On Amendment 55A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, he is right that swift and reliable access to vehicle data will be central to correctly apportioning liability—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. As our policy scoping notes set out, we intend to develop regulatory requirements covering data recording, retention and access, in line with the Law Commissions’ recommendations. Ensuring that those are appropriate and proportionate will require careful consultation and impact assessment. The approach proposed by the amendment is unlikely to allow for that and therefore will not adequately address the issue.
Amendment 55F calls for the Government to lay a Statement on who is responsible for insuring and maintaining authorised automated vehicles. The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to use or permit the use of a vehicle without appropriate insurance or in a dangerous state. The offence therefore applies to the driver, and potentially to others who enable the use of the vehicle. Clause 49 is clear that the user-in-charge is to be considered a driver for all purposes other than those relating to how the vehicle behaves. The responsibility for roadworthiness and insurance therefore sits with the user-in-charge, just as it does with a conventional driver. Self-driving vehicles that do not require a user-in-charge must be overseen by a no-user-in-charge operator. These operators may own and oversee fleets of vehicles, meaning that they would be responsible for maintenance and insurance. Alternatively, they may simply offer an oversight and incident response service for privately owned vehicles. In this case, it is more appropriate that those responsibilities sit with the owner. Where the responsibilities sit will therefore depend on the business model, and that will be clarified by the Government as part of each operator’s licensing conditions as necessary.
Amendment 55H calls for a Statement on the information that will be published to support the underwriting of self-driving vehicle insurance. Under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act, self-driving vehicles require policies where the insurer has first-instance liability when the vehicle is driving itself. The insurer is then able to recover against the person responsible, which may be the authorised self-driving entity, following an incident. The Government will establish a public register of self-driving vehicle authorisations, including a list of authorised self-driving entities. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency vehicle registration database will then identify which vehicles have been authorised as self-driving. That will provide clarity about which vehicles require a self-driving insurance policy. While we feel that this information will be sufficient to ensure that vehicles are fit for underwriting purposes, we recognise that further data could support the more accurate pricing of risk. My officials have begun discussions with insurers about what could be needed, and this dialogue will continue as the secondary legislation is developed. I trust that clarifies the position, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, agrees that Amendments 55F and 55H are not needed.
With Amendments 38 and 52, the noble Lord looks to remove the need for the victim of an incident to prove that an automated vehicle was driving itself in order to make a claim for compensation. There is no such need to begin with. Where a conventional driver-operated vehicle is involved in a collision, the victim has a claim against the at-fault driver. In practice, either the victim or the driver will contact the relevant insurer for the vehicle, who will then investigate the claim to establish fault and issue compensation appropriately. This approach is long-established and set out in law. It generally works well, and it is not the function of the Bill to change it. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act assigns the insurer first-instance liability in incidents caused by an automated vehicle that is driving itself. That means the victim is able to claim compensation from the relevant insurer whether there is an at-fault driver or whether the vehicle was in self-driving mode. A claim can be made in either case. The insurer can then determine whether that claim is covered by the conventional third-party insurance or the self-driving vehicle insurance. As I have set out, we will be setting authorisation requirements mandating certain forms of data logging. This information will help the processing of claims.
On Amendment 39, it would be inappropriate to apply a presumption of liability inconsistently across different road users. That could even encourage risk-taking behaviour and ultimately compromise road safety. I recognise the wider point that the noble Lord is making about the safety of other road users. In our earlier discussion about accessibility, I referred to some of the measures we will use to avoid specific groups being placed at a disadvantage by the introduction of self-driving vehicles. For example, we will look to include principles of equality and fairness in the statement of safety principles and will take steps to prevent data biases. These will also apply to vulnerable road users.
In conclusion, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that we have a further conversation about it.
Lord Moylan
“(7) Regulations under this section may not be made until the Secretary of State has launched a public consultation for updating the Manual for Streets to take into account the consequences for streetscapes of the introduction of automated vehicles, particularly in urban areas.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I realise we are coming to the end of Committee, so I shall endeavour to be fairly brief, but the subject I raise by way of these two amendments is quite important. Generally, this is a good Bill at a technical level, but it assumes that automated vehicles are going ahead and will be deployed. In fact, there has been little debate with the public about what the consequences of this might be for our streetscapes and the urban landscape in which we live. There has been a failure on the Government’s part, in a sense, to sell to and explain to the public what I call the look and feel of automated vehicles, as opposed to the technical matters dealt with in the Bill.
If I may say so, it was a mistake of the Government when they published their policy document on this subject last year not to have brought it to the Floor of the House for debate at some point, so that noble Lords could have commented on what they thought the consequences might be. An illustration of that failure is the debate we had earlier on accessibility. The fact is that disabled people—and the rest of us—simply do not know what the Bill will mean for them in practice. They ask questions of my noble friend the Minister and get very exiguous answers, which do not satisfy them as to what their experience will be when these vehicles are deployed. That is true in other realms as well.
My Amendments 62 and 63 simply probe these questions. This may not be a long debate, but it is important to raise them. Amendment 62 relates specifically to the Manual for Streets, which is to do with how our streets are designed. Amendment 63 is broader and takes account of the operation of the streets, how they function and the legislation that covers that. To a certain extent, the Manual for Streets and design sit within the broader operation, but I have separated them out because there are two different questions.
It is worth saying that, when the Manual for Streets was published in 2007 and its complementary second part published in 2010, it was widely welcomed by people who were interested in this area. It has been due for an update for quite a long time, and I believe that a contract was let two or three years ago to one of the chartered institutes in order to prepare a draft. But, as far as I know—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—it has never been republished, and we are still waiting, years on. I do not understand why. Before I go further, I ask my noble friend to give us an indication of when the revised version of the Manual for Streets might be published. Will it take account of any of the consequences for the design of streets that might arise from the introduction of automated vehicles?
I was involved in quite innovative and imaginative—I hope—streetscape design ideas for some 15 years, as the deputy leader of a London borough council and with personal responsibility for that area, as deputy chairman of Transport for London, and during the whole of that time as chairman of Urban Design London, which I helped to found nearly 20 years ago. We were trying to achieve the removal of clutter—particularly guard-rails along pavements—the scrapping of one-way highways through the centre of London, like Piccadilly, and their reversion to more natural two-way streets, and the promotion of shared space. In short, we were trying to humanise the urban experience, which is what we are trying to achieve. How will those ambitions be affected by the introduction of automated vehicles?
The Government have a clear and robust but fundamentally unconvincing response to this, saying that there will be no changes: that automated vehicles will simply have to respond to what exists and, if they do not work with that, they will not be allowed on the road. As I understand it, that is the Government’s position, but this is unconvincing. Take guard-rails as an example. We know that automated vehicles will be designed so that, as far as possible, if somebody steps out in front of them or if a cyclist goes across their path, they will automatically detect the obstruction ahead of them and stop. That exposes the entire urban network of automated vehicles to frivolous activity on the part of people who want to stop them and bring the whole thing to an end, if they choose to do that.
I cannot believe that, with the amount of money that is likely to be required as an investment from the private sector in automated vehicles, manufacturers will not, at some point, turn up at the department, saying, “This can’t go on. We can’t be putting up with all this. We’re not going to invest in a network that can be brought to a stop on this basis. We demand the reintroduction of guard-rails. Let us have designated pedestrian crossing points on the streets that everyone will have to move to”. Potentially, for the first time in England, this would criminalise jaywalking, so that people could be fined for crossing the road. That is naturally what they will ask for.
At that point, I find it difficult to believe that the Government will turn around and say, “No”. They will have taken the bait: they will have sold the idea that there are millions of green jobs—or blue jobs, or whatever we want to call them—in all of this, and that the investment is good for Britain and so forth. We will have put in place the Bill’s legislative, technical and insurance-based risk-management apparatus, much of which is sensible—I know there are detailed questions about its operation, but, fundamentally, I think everyone in the House agrees that this is a necessary component. But it puts the cart before the horse; it puts the framework in place before we know what it will look like when it is deployed. I gave that one example of guard-rails, but I could multiply this; in the interest of time, I will stop with that one example.
However, these are important questions, and I feel fundamentally dissatisfied—not with the content of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve but with the Government’s approach to it, which seems to pre-empt discussion about who benefits from this, its purpose and the attractions we will find in it, allowing us to debate that when the Bill effectively excludes it. My amendments simply open up a brief moment at the very end of Committee—I realise that people are understandably thinking of further obligations in the course of the evening and may not want to debate this at great length, but these are important questions. Any contribution would be helpful, but a response from the Minister that is a little more than what has been said before—and a little more convincing than what has been said before—would be very helpful.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
The noble Lord has assured us that this is a probing amendment, and I am convinced he is not expecting many answers from me. I give way to the Minister.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments and for sharing his perspectives on these issues. I will begin by briefly addressing his point about public understanding and properly communicating what he refers to as the “look and feel” of a world with self-driving vehicles.
In previous debates, I have referred to The Great Self-Driving Exploration. This ground-breaking study was specifically designed to allow people from all walks of life to understand more about self-driving vehicles and to comment on whether they felt their introduction would be beneficial. This is just one example of the work we have been doing in this space.
Amendment 63 looks to require that a statement be made on the necessary changes to highways legislation that may arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. As I set out earlier this afternoon, the Bill does not require changes to our roads, nor are changes considered necessary for the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles. The Bill already sets out the legislative changes that we believe are necessary to enable their use. Local authorities are responsible for managing their road networks, and the existing legislative framework provides them with a wide range of powers to regulate traffic. It also places duties on them to ensure that they do so effectively, for the benefit of all road users. We believe that this existing framework is sufficient to enable them to regulate traffic, including self-driving vehicles, appropriately. Highways legislation is a complex area of law, covering a wide range of powers, duties and responsibilities. For many parts of the Bill, a statement of the kind proposed in the amendment would be irrelevant and would cause unnecessary delay in implementing the new regulatory framework.
My noble friend’s Amendment 62 calls for a consultation on updating the Manual for Streets to take into account the introduction of self-driving vehicles. As I have made clear, self-driving vehicles must adapt to our roads, not the other way round. We would therefore not expect significant changes to the Manual for Streets to be necessary. As was pointed out, the manual was first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. The department is working on bringing together and updating both manuals, which will be published in due course. I will ensure that my noble friend is updated on the progress of this.
Local authorities are responsible for the design and management of their roads, and for setting their own design standards. We have long encouraged them to use the principles in the Manual for Streets in doing so. The department produces a wide range of technical advice documents on aspects of street design and traffic management, of which the manual is just one. There is no statutory consultation requirement for the Manual for Streets, so imposing such a requirement in this case would be unnecessary. However, in line with good practice, key stakeholders have been involved in its development.
Tying the commencement of the Bill to the production of the manual would appear disproportionate, considering there is relatively little overlap between the two. It would therefore cause unnecessary delay in implementing the framework for self-driving vehicles. While I recognise that I may not have been able to provide my noble friend with all the answers that he was looking for, I hope that these explanations have none the less been helpful and go so some way to allowing him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has not actually provided the answers to any of the questions that I raised, but I am not wholly surprised by that. I shall say only that it is indeed part of the purpose of the proposals to cause delay to the implementation of the Bill while we work out what we are trying to achieve. My noble friend has acutely put his finger on that point—so we are at odds on that.
However, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that I do not think that further debate would be fruitful in eliciting helpful responses from my noble friend, I ask the Committee’s leave to withdraw the amendment.